Thread: Common Purpose

Originally Posted by Ea of Dune

Agreed, the problem is as soon as anything like CP gets mentioned/uncovered, some of the nutters jump on board. None of us have any control what gets written in blogs etc. so as I stated before this often muddies the water, and people no longer approach it objectivly, they just say "conspiracy nonsense" etc.

I'd hate to think how much money has been spent over 18 years on this rubbish. It must be a disgusting amount.

Ea of dune

This is the problem. People like David Ike take a situation that may or may not be a problem of genuine concern and turn it so ridiculous people just switch off rather than having a god look at the subject.

In my opinion anything that is funded through any public money should be accountable and transparent to the public and not operating under chatham house rules.

Because CP don’t like the fact that members of the public are doing what they are entitled to by requesting info under the freedom of information act 2000, they are coming up with reasons (red herrings) why this sort of material should not be released.

Each time a member of the public requests information that relates to an outside supplier to say a govt body, the council - police etc can under the terms ask that third party if they have any reservations why information they hold should not be released under foi. After consultation with the third party it is then up to the legal department dealing with the request to consider whether it is in the public interest to release all or part of the original request.


Reply to a freedom of information request that was made to a member of Common Purpose's advisory group who works for a large University.

This particular member (who completed a CP course courtesy of the taxpayer in 2006 at a cost of £4.5 ) has the cheek to say this is something she does in her own time. In 2006 she organised a recruitment lunch for Common Purpose at the same University. Again the taxpayer picked up the tab.

They have also sponsored (at least £1k) CPs "Your Turn" training progs targeting 13-15 year olds in the area. This reply is a standard "cut n paste reply"


Dear Mr Hughes

In answer to your request for information under the Freedom of Information legislation, I have examined any records I possess in the areas you mention.
Under the provisions of the legislation, I claim exemption under the following heading of commercial confidentiality and personal data.

1) Common Purpose materials, curriculum and techniques are Common Purpose's own Intellectual Property and an integral part of their 'brand' in the leadership development marketplace. Details of programmes content or methodology is also as exempt from disclosure as it could be commercially damaging to Common Purpose if competitor organisations were to obtain this information. This includes agendas or essential information packs. Information shared with Advisory Group members is also shared in confidence, as it contains information about the internal management and operations of Common Purpose which is commercially sensitive and therefore also exempt from disclosure.

2) All Common Purpose programmes operate under the Chatham House Rule which states that:
“When a meeting is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed; nor may it be mentioned that the information was received at the meeting.”

This allows the methodogy of candid, robust debate within Common Purpose programmes on the understanding that the source of any information would not be revealed. If such information were to be released, the Chatham House Rule would be compromised and, along with it, the position of trust that Common Purpose holds. This would be damaging to reputation, brand and customer relationships - therefore information about participants, speakers and other contributors to our programmes (both individual names and names of organisations) is commercially sensitive and is treated as exempt from disclosure.


3) You also asked for information on my role as an Advisory Board Member for Common Purpose in the Bristol area. Like other voluntary activities, anyone volunteering their time as an Advisory Group member for Common Purpose does so in a personal, voluntary capacity. Common Purpose Advisory Group members receive, as part of their induction, a briefing pack that is explicit on this point, stating, "Members of Local Advisory Groups are senior decision makers who are recognised as leaders in the city/area. Members should reflect the diversity of the area. All are members in their own right, not as representatives of their organisations or communities." As a result any correspondence between Advisory Group members and Common Purpose concerning their voluntary and personal role as a local Advisory Group member is therefore a personal matter and as such exempt from disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


This reply is laughable and very sad. A very senior public servant (probably earning least 60-70 k plus p/a) has obviously taken advice from Common Purpose before replying to this request. I know this because I have encountered this type of excuse many times.

The briefing pack she refers to is an amazing doucument which I have in my posession (if anoyne wants a copy e-mail me)

She states in her reply that -

All are members in their own right, not as representatives of their organisations or communities." As a result any correspondence between Advisory Group members and Common Purpose concerning their voluntary and personal role

Except when she is busy promoting CP inside the University, putting her own staff on CP courses, arranging free recruitment lunches for 30 plus people at the Uni's expense, plus attending Common Purpose advsory group meetings in University time. These are the things we know about as per previous foi requests.

As I stated before this is just one reply from one area in the UK. CP has recruited over 400 advisory group members (90 per cent work in the public sector - Police Chiefs, Council Ch Execs, Fire Chiefs ertc)

CP exist courtesy of the taxpayer.

I would start with a copy of such a letter to all the members of the governing body of the university, local newspapers, etc.

I can't recall a time when I felt so much in two minds as I am about this Common Purpose business.

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that this is an evil which must be exposed and confronted, and even used as a kind of shorthand for the PC enemy we all face today.

Then I think of David Noakes and his acolytes and my heart sinks.

I've been reading this thread off and on for a few days. At first(being honest here) I thought ok you people are nuts. This is like some sci fi novel. Problem is this thing keeps cropping up everywhere. Not just talking about here in this thread I mean elsewhere on the net. And it's scaring the **** out of me. I've seriously thought about not talking about politics or the EU anymore. If this is real it is very very bad stuff. It's all well and good you have proof and evidence but what are you going to do with it exactly? Who is going to listen to you?

Something to consider.

Common Purpose is a registered charity.

A charity that exists courtesy of the taxpayer does not want YOU to know about it's activities.