CASE STUDIES IN CORRUPTION AND DECEIT
1. Part of a letter describing Common Purpose corruption on Sheffield City Council:
"It is necessary here to describe some aspects of the practices of Common Purpose, and how association with Common Purpose is integral to the corruption in this council.
Common Purpose is a networking organisation. There is no networking carried out by council officers, or council associated organisations, that could not be carried out without Common Purpose. You, John Mothersole, said to the Audit Commission that Common Purpose was good for promoting the city, yet there is no promotion that could not be done without Common Purpose.
The question must therefore be, why have Common Purpose at all?
Common Purpose's own literature boasts that Common Purpose can control a major city if it has the right people in place.
Common Purpose graduates are chosen among leaders and potential leaders for their benefit to Common Purpose, and trained at ratepayers' expense, for which the council has conceded is of no demonstrable financial benefit to the ratepayer.
According to this council's protocols, Common Purpose is a secret society, and all those associated with Common Purpose have a statutory duty to declare. This council unlawfully refuses point blank to release a list of Common Purpose graduates, officers, members, or associates. Those in receipt of training, according to Common Purpose, agree that their names, company position and employer details may be published. Yet this council still refuses to comply with the law.
Common Purpose holds it meetings, in ratepayer time, in ratepayer funded premises such as the Town Hall, under 'Chatham House' rules, i.e. secrecy. These meetings include but are not limited to including Common Purpose graduates from Yorkshire Forward, Voluntary Action Sheffield, OFFER, Primary Care Trusts, Police, Government Office of Yorkshire and the Humber, etc.
There is no meeting that could not be held by these people and organisations that could not be held in an open and transparent manner.
To rub salt in this festering wound, Common Purpose, having trained its graduates at ratepayers' expense, Common Purpose then enjoys the unwitting ratepayers' hospitality at its meetings.
So we are back to the question, why Common Purpose?
The answer is mind-numbingly simple – power!
Common Purpose graduates are taught to lead beyond their authority.
Common Purpose meetings facilitate exercising influence, interest and control upon the graduates' employers, whilst unlawfully bypassing statutory democratic processes, avoiding transparency and accountability, and imposing the pre-set agenda of top-down controlled social engineering.
To add insult to ratepayers' injury, these meetings coach on how to avoid compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, promote their own 'services', and unlawfully elicit financially binding arrangements upon the host authority whilst avoiding scrutiny.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of elected members are kept blissfully unaware.
To quite a large extent, Common Purpose is running this council as a government agent.
I will now turn to your letter of 17 March. This is what you wrote:
"C: Senior Council Officers Lying to me to Avoid FOIA Compliance
No recorded information exists that you made a previous request in respect of Common Purpose; the misunderstanding for which I apologise, arose because of confusion with the numerous other requests that you have made for information featured in the Annual Accounts.
The Council annually funds one corporate place on a Common Purpose training scheme, and the cost of the most recent course for the most recent complete financial year was £3,084, including VAT."
Well, not only does this ghost-written response repeatedly lie, it even lies about its lies!
There was no confusion. A legitimate request for information was unlawfully refused on the false grounds that the same requests had been made to other council officers. This type of behaviour has become Common. Both Elizabeth Mary Bashforth and Peter Harrow have copies of my reply to this lie, and my copy of the request to Peter Harrow requiring him to name these officers, and reveal what they said about me. No confusion, just a lie. My letters, as is so often the case with Elizabeth Mary Bashforth, were simply ignored. As for the FoIA request for the names and details, this was also ignored, thus again showing that this council has nothing but contempt for the law. The audit commission has criticised Elizabeth Mary Bashforth for refusing to respond.
Now let us look at what you, as signatory, wrote about Common Purpose Training for last full accounting year: Cost: £3084 Number: ONE
After the intervention of the Audit Commission, I was given the following figures for council expenditure on Common Purpose training, in a letter dated 16 September 2008:
2007 / 08 £8250 Officers attending: 3
2008 / 09 £3125 Officers attending: 3
Oh dear! What is it about Common Purpose that, whenever there are requests for information, it is either denied, or the council has lied.
Note also that the council has refused to identify who receives Common Purpose training at ratepayers' expense. What is there to be so ashamed of?
Why the secrecy?"
2. This Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice was made on 22 June 2008 and it took them until 02 April 2009 to reply.
Note the complete absence of any written records referring to the use of publicly-owned facilities by Common Purpose - no signed agreement, no record of rent, no invoices, no indication of what the premises were used for - nothing.
"Common Purpose Norfolk has use of premises at c/o HMP & YOI Norwich, Room 1, The Façade, Knox Road, Norwich, Norfolk, NR1 4LU
1. The date when Common Purpose first occupied these premises.
2. How much rent Common Purpose has paid for these premises, together with copies of all invoices.
3. Who first authorised the use of HMP facilities by Common Purpose.
4. Details of what these Norwich premises are used for.
5. Copies of all correspondence (ie letters, emails and attachments and transcripts of telephone conversations) between HM Prison Service and Common Purpose regarding the use of this Norwich Facility."
"Your request has been handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as a request for information.
I am sorry for the delay in providing you with this response. By way of explanation, the delay has been caused, in part, by and unusually high volume of requests for information and some legacy issues. I am pleased to say that we have made a number of administrative changes which I hope will improve our service. The Information Commissioner is aware of the difficulties the unit has faced and is monitoring the changes we are implementing to improve the position. Please find below the response to your request.
Any agreement for use of office accommodation at HP & YOI Norwich was made on a verbal basis by a former Governor. Therefore, we do not hold any recorded information that relates to your questions numbered 1-5. I can, however, confirm that the verbal agreement for use of premises was rescinded under the current Governing Governor when he took up this position in December 2007."
3. More about Common Purpose corruption on Sheffield City Council (added 2011.03.05)
Sheffield City Council has been a cesspit of Common Purpose corruption for years.
"The District Auditor has revealed he is investigating allegations of illegal payments being made by Sheffield City Council to an organisation that has close links to senior officers at the authority. The organisation at the heart of the investigation was today named as Common Purpose." More...
A concerned Sheffield citizen writes:
"I propose that the District Auditor is bending over backwards in trying to suppress the further exposures of fraud and corruption within Sheffield City Council involving Common Purpose and is also seeking to 'sign-off' the outstanding objections to the accounts so as to pave the way for setting this year's council annual budget next Friday.
It must be remembered that the District Auditor has failed to provide the documents from Peter Harrow that were alleged to have paved the way for a partial release last year, despite the fact that it was Peter Harrow who lied to this citizen, as confirmed by the previous District Auditor. when earlier irregular accounts involving Common Purpose were exposed.
The strong presence of Common Purpose within the higher echelons of the Audit Commission is public knowledge. The previous District Auditor was a Common Purpose 'graduate'
The current issue now concerns the fabrication and suppression of dodgey financial documents that, again, concern Common Purpose. The council have issued false, untruthful and defamatory documents to try and destroy this citizen as part of a vexatious Common Purpose national campaign to destroy those asking questions and to continue with its obsessive program of secrecy.
The police, and other authorities, have been informed.
Sheffield City Council is, to all effects, now controlled by Common Purpose. The council corruption is absolute, out of control, and led from the top down. Being rotten to the core and from the core, everything it touches it taints. Having neither the ability nor inclination to change, outside intervention is indicated. Any person arbitrarily deemed to be a potential threat is subjected to ever-increasing prejudice and sanction as part of its policy of Control or Destroy.
Why so much secrecy? Insider dealing ! False Accountng. Cover-up.
It is course to be hoped that Sheffield City Council have not lied to anyone else about the status of the accounts with respect to the District Auditor."