Thread: Common purpose on Google video

Video exposing the cancer of common purpose - well worth watching as hard evidence is presented.

No EU - Common Purpose Conspiracy Government Infiltrators 9-15-07 Brian Gerrish

I decided to take time to watch this. You omitted to mention it runs for approx.2 hours!

There are several pages devoted to it:
common purpose - Google Search

I'm still unsure if the arguments put forward are any more valid than those advanced by your run of the mill conspiracy theorists. A few interesting points were raised and now I have a better understanding of who is involved.

I'm making my own enquiries, rather than being a couch potato spectator.

Dear Sir

Having read a bit on your site regarding your organisation I am a little confused about a couple of points, those being the promotion of diversity and democracy. You see the opposite of democracy, which is where everyone has equal say in running society, is what you refer to as leadership. It is not possible to have a proper democracy with a leadership who all network together, act exclusively to the people they serve and have the aim of changing things. This is because the change in a democratic society is coming from the masses, not a select group of self-appointed leaders.

In effect the leaders need to be followers in order to have a working democracy, they need to listen to people, not to dictate to them in a kind of way that says they are above them and know better what they want than the people do themselves. In times gone by we had a free market where people could decide what they want by making purchases. Do you subscribe to this model of democracy and if not what makes you think you know what people want better than they do? Furthermore do you see a danger that groupthink could severely damage the prospects of clear and sensible thinking? This might well be more of a problem when the group is not representative of the country as a whole. How do you explain this, I would be most interested to know?

Thank you

So far I have received this reply

Have you seen our website about how Common Purpose is developing better leaders at work and in civil society?

This is weird. I just a moment ago wanted to do a search on theyworkforyou, the political reference site and just under the search box is the most commonly searched term of the day. Guess what, the term was 'common purpose'. So some undercurrent is brewing somewhere considering it has not been in the mainstream news as far as I'm aware. Unless you know differently.

I wrote to my local council asking them what safe guards they had in place, to ensure councillors where not suspected of taking back handers, through their observance of the Chatham House rules at CP events.
I haven't had a reply yet. Funny thing is one of the chaps at the local council who discussed using a CP course for council members is now running BSF which has a budget of around 40 Billion.

Excellent. Although you might have a problem getting a reply. I have found the best way to ask councillors about things they don't want to talk about is when you are asking them in front of the public. The public just love those difficult questions fired at them and are all eager to hear what they have to say. Silence is not an option under those circumstances.

Here is how my enquiry is getting on

My reply to their reply is here:

Yes, I mentioned that I had seen it in the first line of the letter I sent. Have you read my letter and would you care to reply to it?

Thank you

And their reply is here:

Apologies for the blank notification email - we seem to behaving problems with the "contact us" form on our website. Can you confirm that is what you used to send your message (it would help us narrow down what the problem is!).

Your original message didn't get through - but if you repeat your query, I'll get back to you immediately!

Hmm, a very novel way of running the super fast expanding business with record growth levels etc etc.

Yeah I emailed CPand got some stock response of a graphic lol, how very professional eh?
I think they meant "be having" as well