MOBILE VERSION
COMMON PURPOSE 'GRADUATES' BREACH THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC LIFE
Those Common Purpose 'graduates' who are public servants breach ALL the Seven Principles of Public Life as set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
HOW THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES ARE BREACHED
Let me go through each of the Seven Principles of Public Life as set out on the Committee on Standards in Public Life website and explain how the principles are being breached.
1. Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
People become Common Purpose 'graduates' for career advancement and to be part of a secret, Masonic-like society for careerists who want what Common Purpose has to offer - access to the corridors of power. This is not the action of a selfless person. The Common Purpose idea of 'leading beyond authority' is particularly attractive to the corporate psychopath class of person who will see it a green light to go around their organisation and pick up power wherever they find it laying around. These people are not noted for their selflessness.
2. Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Being part of the Common Purpose network brings those in public service under pressure to do favours for other Common Purpose 'graduates'. The lack of integrity and probity of some Common Purpose police officers is particularly disturbing.
Police officers are supposed to operate 'without fear or favour' but there are plenty of favours being done by Common Purpose police for their colleagues in the Common Purpose network. There is no need whatsoever for police officers to be part of any Common Purpose style network.
Here is a clear example of how Common Purpose seeks to corruptly influence the police:
CommonPurpose Instructions to Police is a pdf file of a copy of a letter sent by Common Purpose to the Chief Constable of Fife giving instructions on how to deal with Freedom of Information requests made to him about Common Purpose. Many other Chief Constables would have received similar instructions.
Why is an 'educational charity' like Common Purpose giving instructions to police officers about how they should handle Freedom of Information requests made to them about Common Purpose? What is going on?
Here is a clear example of how Common Purpose seeks to corruptly influence the prison service:
Norwich prison released to Common Purpose the name and address of a person who quite legitimately asked them, under the Freedom of Information Act, why the prison was providing offices for Common Purpose, and how much Common Purpose was paying. HMP Norwich had no right to release this information contrary to the Data Protection Act and has had to apologise.
Why does Common Purpose want to know the identities of those people making FOI requests about them? Why did HMP Norwich flagrantly breach the Data Protection Act? What action is being taken against them? What is going on?
I wonder how many more examples there are of Common Purpose corruptly influencing members of the police, judiciary, armed forces and other public servants.
These Freedom of Information requests have given Common Purpose the jitters. Because they have so much to hide, Common Purpose cannot stand having questions asked about them and are now using their network of 'graduates' to put pressure on public authorities to refuse to answer questions about Common Purpose on the grounds that they are 'vexatious'.
This is an outrageous interference with the public's right to learn what public authorities are up to and how public money is spent.
3. Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Being part of the Common Purpose network will bring public servants under pressure to do favours for other Common Purpose 'graduates' rather than to act impartially and objectively.
Common Purpose has corrupted the British media, including the BBC - a public authority.
One of the main targets of Common Purpose is the media because 'New' Labour and Brussels need to control propaganda to the masses. Many BBC, ITV and other media personnel are members of the Common Purpose Revolution by Stealth operation.
The Common Purpose 'graduates' who have infiltrated the BBC have destroyed the reputation that the BBC had amongst many for independent and accurate reporting of news and current affairs. And this deceit has all been funded by the BBC Licence Tax payer.
4. Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
There is a strong resistance amongst Common Purpose 'graduates' towards giving out details of their Common Purpose membership and the activities they engage in. Common Purpose operates according to the Chatham House rules which effectively means that meetings are held in secret with no agenda, records or accountability. Why are public servants allowed to attend these unaccountable meetings and training courses?
5. Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
There is a strong resistance amongst Common Purpose 'graduates' in public office towards giving out details of their Common Purpose membership and the activities they engage in. Common Purpose itself operates according to the Chatham House rules which effectively means that meetings are held in secret with no agenda, records or accountability. Hardly a recipe for 'Open Government'.
Just why are Common Purpose and some public bodies, such as some police forces, so frightened of the public finding out who their Common Purpose members are and what takes place on Common Purpose training courses by hiding behind Chatham House Rules and Freedom of Information exemptions? What has happened to probity?
There is very strong resistance by some public bodies towards giving out information requested in Freedom of Information requests about their dealings with Common Purpose.
Here are some of the methods some public bodies use to avoid disclosure of information under Freedom of Information (FOI) requests:
I. Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000)
Here is an example of identical requests made to different constabularies:
a. to the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary who provided names of Common Purpose graduates and expenditure on Common Purpose courses
here
b. to the Norfolk Constabulary who refuse to provide the names Common Purpose graduates but provide expenditure details:
here
II. Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) again:
a. here someone asked the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council for copies of Common Purpose invoices which were provided in full:
here
b. here someone asked the Greater London Authority a similar question and were sent copies of the invoices with the names removed:
here
III. Asking about individuals
Look at the hoops they are jumping through at the BBC to avoid answering a question about Mark Thompson, Director-General of the BBC and his connection with Common Purpose:
here
If Common Purpose has nothing to hide, if Common Purpose is not sinister, then why do organisations keep from the public the names of persons who have attended Common Purpose courses? What have they to hide?
6. Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Many Common Purpose 'graduates' in public service deliberately hide their membership of Common Purpose. This leaves them open to accusations of dishonesty, corruption, favouritism and under-the-counter dealings. Common Purpose targets the grey areas where public and private bodies meet such as Local Strategic Partnerships. These are prime candidates for potential corruption and dishonesty.
Common Purpose 'graduates' are masters of deceit and doublespeak.
7. Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
A Common Purpose quote: "People who lead beyond their authority can produce change beyond their direct circle of control".
Leading beyond authority can mean acting ultra vires. Ultra vires a legal concept. It is Latin for 'beyond the powers'. It can apply to any body which has rules, such as a charity or a local authority. An ultra vires act is one that is outside the specified and/or implied constitutional objects and powers of the body in question. It is 'beyond the powers' and therefore illegal.
Also, what are the implications of 'leading beyond authority' for services which require a hierarchical management structure to ensure discipline and cohesion, like the armed forces and police which can be manipulated from within for political purposes?
Common Purpose 'graduates' are incapable of leading by example because those people who have found out what they are up to do not trust them at all.
|
|
|
