Brian Gerrish and Anthony Hilder EU Hitlers Dream Come True (Full)
COMMON PURPOSE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UPDATE 5 FEBRUARY 2015
 | Common Purpose as exists in the UK does not have representation in the USA. Common Purpose is being used to implement the European Union / New World Order communitarian agenda in the UK and a few other countries. The NWO communitarian agenda in the USA is being implemented through communitarian programs: http://nord.twu.net/acl/commgov101.html |
"blog: National Premise Information Repository
COMPASS: Community Mapping
Faith Based Initiatives
blog: Faith Based Partnerships
LA 21 in Worland, Wyoming
blog: Gangstalking
blog: Dynamic Facilitation Skills Seminar" from: http://nord.twu.net/acl/research.html
"A few Communitarian Players and Programs:
Compassionate Conservatism is communitarianism. The Third Way is communitarianism. International Law has "communitarian pretentions." Community Policing is Communitarian Policing. Bill Clinton was a communitarian president.
Agenda 21 uses communitarian language. The President of Colombia is a communitarian president. President Bush is a communitarian president. George Soros is a communitarian. Americorps is a communitarian programme. Citizen Corps is a communitarian draft. Hilary Clinton is (among other various titles) a communitarian. ABCD- Asset Based Community Development is a communitarian mapping programme. Domestic Violence Acts and laws rely on communitarian shaming. Family based crime prevention is communitarian. Creative crime prevention is communitarian. Talmudic Homeland Security is communitarian. Faith-based programmes are communitarian. Domestic disarmament is Communitarian. Character Building is Communitarian. Globalization of Values and Norms is Communitarian. The New World Order is communitarian." from: http://nord.twu.net/acl/communitar.html
MENU
|
Britain 2010 - Common Purpose
corruption and communitarianism
Common Purpose in the USA
Questions about Common Purpose
Common Purpose > Collectivist Purpose > Totalitarianism
According to this, Common Purpose is "a criminal organisation that abuses government posts for gain". "Incitement to criminality: In reality operating outside authority for the police, and many others, means operating illegally and without accountability. This does not bother Middleton however, who urges Common Purpose leaders to create their own legitimacy. She quotes organisations as Stranger 1 and Stranger 2. But why are these strangers so shy? Are they financial contributors, do they have political agendas?
If readers sense something sinister at work, I agree. Middleton does not really explain how, when she took over, she was able to raise £500,000 in a few months, and continues to receive huge donations from big business. She does not tell the reader how her Advisory Boards in each City select members for the Common Purpose élite. We know about half are selected for the inner sanctum - those who can be compromised, those who can be bribed with big salaries in quango or non jobs ,and those who will lie to conceal CP activities. But she does give a hint as to how the chosen are classified - 'Suns' (people of established power and influence), as 'Stars' (those of rapid but unpredictable rise to power and influence), and as 'Moons' (those individuals of diminishing power). Those who will not help Common Purpose, or who challenge it, are called 'Black Holes'." Brian Gerrish
Tax evasion
Common Purpose uses public sector facilities and office space for which it has made no payment nor signed any formal agreements. Is this to evade tax?
Breaches of Data Protection law
2009-01-20 "Common Purpose has been reported to the Information Commissioner's Office for alleged breaches of data protection law." Read more here.
Ultra Vires
A (Judeo Nasi) 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 hierchical management structure to ensure discipline and cohesion, like the armed forces and police which can be manipulated from within for political purposes?
How can CP get around this? By getting the New Labour 'government' to change the laws, of course.
(Judeo Nasi) Common Purpose 'Charity'
Common Purpose operates fraudulently as a charity.
1. Common Purpose has redefined the meaning of 'charity'. Although Common Purpose calls itself an 'educational charity', it is not the poor and disadvantaged who benefit. Instead, the main beneficiaries are the rich and powerful.
2. According to the Charity Commission, "An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political."
When you get beneath the facade of Common Purpose, its purposes are clearly political, not educational. The hidden agenda of Common Purpose is based on the political philosophy of the 'Third Way' and pursues the political objective of the creation of a collectivist and corporatist society within the European Union.
Why is Common Purpose allowed to be a charity when its hidden agenda is clearly political?
If you have any evidence of political activity by Common Purpose, please contact me.
Local authority fiddles
Common Purpose has been obtaining money for training unlawfully, on at least three counts:
- the decision for local authorities to spend the money on training was taken outside of the democratic processes and is therefore unlawful
- the local authorities, when pressed, had to admit that there was no financial benefit to the ratepayer, i.e. unlawful
- there are large bills for creating bespoke training courses, when in fact it is the same off-the-shelf course, i.e. fraud
Curiously enough, Wikipedia defines 'common purpose' as:
"In criminal law, the doctrine of common purpose, common design or joint enterprise refers to the situation where two or more people embark on a project with a common purpose that results in the commission of a crime. In this situation the participants are jointly liable for all that results from the acts and omissions occurring within the scope of their agreement."
Well, fancy that!
CP Doublespeak:
Consensus means Dictatorship
NASI COMMON PURPOSE MEMBERS ('GRADUATES')
The main way that Common Purpose is subverting Britain is by infiltrating their 'graduates' into managerial positions of power in national and local government, the media, the NHS, the military, the police and the judiciary. Update: 2009-12-09 Database of some Common Purpose members supplied by Brian Gerrish (.xls spreadsheet).
A list of some BBC employees who have attended (NASI) Common Purpose courses.
Common Purpose needs these 'graduates' to run the social control bureaucracy of the British regions of the European Union in what they call the 'post-democratic' society.
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.
Some Common Purpose members think they are the 'chosen people'. In reality, they have been selected for their corruptibility, suggestibility, stupidity and cupidity. They are useful idiots.
The term 'graduate' is used deliberately so as to prevent disclosure of involvement with Common Purpose. As 'member' of Common Purpose, which is more appropriate, individuals in the public sector would have to declare their interests.
Common Purpose creates the illusion that it is for ordinary people, but it is run by an élite for an élite. You do not become a Common Purpose 'graduate' unless you are in the right job, have the right influence and conform to the politically-correct Common Purpose collective mindset. In order to qualify as a Common Purpose 'graduate', candidates have to pass the Common Purpose 'correct thinking' schemes.
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 means that meetings are held in secret with no agenda, records or accountability.
So strong is the Common Purpose bond, that some individuals will lie to hide information and documents considered 'dangerous' to the Common Purpose cause. People challenging Common Purpose colleagues have been victimised and forced out of their positions.
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?
Common Purpose 'graduates' are corrupt and treacherous crooks who are totally untrustworthy. Some of these 'graduates' are 'useful idiots' who do not realise just how evil Common Purpose is.
How to Find Common Purpose Members ('Graduates')
You can make Freedom of Information (FOI) requests online free, gratis and for nothing here.
If the people you want to find out about are employed by a public body, you could try making a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the body they work for asking specifically if Mr X has ever attended a Common Purpose training course, or if they are probable celebrities, check celeb fan blogs like showbuzzgurl for some information. Also ask if they are a Common Purpose 'graduate', when they attended the course, how much the courses they attended cost and who paid. You might strike lucky.
You can simply ask for a list of members of that organisation who are Common Purpose 'graduates'. You might get lucky or you might get a "we don't keep those records centrally and it will cost too much to find out" type of answer.
It is a good idea to explain what Common Purpose is because some of the people who handle these FOI requests appear not to know, so you can say something like "By Common Purpose, I mean the training organisation of that name: http://www.commonpurpose.org/home.aspx By Common Purpose 'graduate', I refer to a specific class of person who has passed the advanced Common Purpose courses."
If you do not get a reply...
If they do not reply to you within 20 working days - i.e. about a month, I suggest you do two things:
1. Write to them again and ask for an internal review of the request
2. Complain to the Information Commissioner's Office here or write to them here.
Here is a sample request:
[ENTER NAME HERE] - Common Purpose training
Dear Sir or Madam,
1. Has [ENTER NAME HERE] ever attended a Common Purpose training course? If so, please list the courses they have attended, their dates, their cost and details of who paid for them.
2. Is [ENTER NAME HERE] a Common Purpose 'graduate'?
By 'Common Purpose', I mean the training organisation of that name: http://www.commonpurpose.org/home.aspx By 'Common Purpose graduate', I refer to a specific class of person who has passed the advanced Common Purpose courses.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
Here is another sample request:
[ORGANISATION NAME] - Common Purpose courses: expenditure and invoices
Dear Sir or Madam
Please provide details of:
1. the names and ranks/grades, departments and job titles of all employees in your organisation who have attended Common Purpose courses.
2. the total expenditure on Common Purpose courses for each year from 1997 to date together with a copy of the invoice for each Common Purpose course paid for by your organisation.
By 'Common Purpose', I mean the training organisation of that name: http://www.commonpurpose.org
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
If someone is not employed by a public body, then things are more difficult. You could try asking them, I suppose. There is certainly no point in asking Common Purpose - you won't get much out of them.
Happy hunting... remember Common Purpose can't stand people asking questions about them.
Here are some of the methods organisations use to avoid disclosure of information under Freedom of Information (FOI) requests:
1. 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 CP graduates and expenditure on CP courses
Click here
b. to the Norfolk Constabulary who refuse to provide the names CP graduates but provide expenditure details:
Click here
The get-out clause is:
"Under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000), personal information is exempt from disclosure if such a disclosure would breach any of the principles laid down under the Data Protection Act (1998). The first Principle of the Data Protection Act (1998) states that:
"Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully, and, in particular shall not be processed unless
(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met."
In this case, members of the Constabulary have undertaken training courses provided by "Common Purpose" for reasons of personal development, and not as a requirement to perform their role as members of the Constabulary. Disclosure of the information you have requested does not meet any of the conditions of Schedule 2, also members of the Constabulary would have no expectation that their names would be published, and therefore to do so in response to a Freedom of Information request would be unfair to those individuals. Under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) this serves as a refusal notice for this aspect of your request, by virtue of the application of Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information act (2000)."
Note: Any civil servant or policeman who undergoes training at the cost of the taxpayer can only do so if it is of benefit to the taxpayer, i.e. as a part of their public service function. If a public authority uses public money for private development then it is breaking the law. Common Purpose often uses the excuse of 'personal development' when referring to the activities of its members, especially when the actions of those members impacts financially upon the taxpayer. This argument is specious.
2. 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 invoices which were provided in full:
Click here
b. here someone asked the Greater London Authority a similar question and got copies of the invoices with the names blanked out - Section 40(2) exemption:
Click here
Once again the same exemption as invoked by the Norfolk Constabulary is used:
"Some of the information you requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act. The below annex sets out the exemption in full. It also includes a schedule of the information withheld."
3. 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:
Click here
And the Met is a bit slow when it comes to answering about Cressida Dick:
Click here
Why can't they just ask the people concerned?
Here is a reply about Ed Balls (at least the answer is straight... assuming they are telling the truth)
Click here
And from the Chief Constable of Norfolk - the Section 40(2) exemption AGAIN (this exemption is very popular!):
Click 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?
4. Asking for too much information - the section 12 exemption
If you ask for too much information they will probably turn round and say that it will cost too much to provide:
Click here
Which is fair enough, I suppose.
5. Information not held
This is a valid response.
Click here
What question should you ask? Well, you pay your money and take your choice.
Here are some ideas:
1. Do not ask for too much information otherwise they will cite the the section 12 exemption.
2. I think the invoice questions are a good idea. I believe that public bodies are legally required to provide copies of invoices on request but the names may be blanked out to protect the guilty.
3. You should include wording along the lines of:
'By Common Purpose, I mean the training organisation of that name: www.commonpurpose.org/home.aspx By Common Purpose 'graduate', I refer to a specific class of person who has passed the advanced Common Purpose courses.'
because some of the people who process these requests appear not to know what CP is.
4. If you make FOI requests on the whatdotheyknow.com website, you do not have to give your real name.
5. If they refuse to disclose information, they MUST give a reason.
Update 2008-08-13
All these questions 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.
Quote from here:
"Another website, Stop CP, encourages readers to submit Freedom of Information requests to their local authorities to find out who has attended the charity's training courses.
A spokeswoman for Common Purpose said that the charity was concerned at the volume of FOI requests being made about it. 'These appear to have the aim of causing disruption and harassment to Common Purpose as a third party, and, consequently, to the public authority itself,' she said.
Common Purpose now forwards its list of 130 previous FOI requests, including names of applicants, to help local authorities decide whether new requests about the charity are vexatious."
How to Find Out Even More About Common Purpose
You can find out how to contact your local councillors and ask them about Common Purpose activities here.
*The photograph is of English comedian Harry Enfield as 'Loadsamoney' - one of his many characters.
Strengthen Nuclear Capability to Avert Indian Designs
ReplyDeleteWritten by (Author ) Local, Pakistan, World Jun 22, 2010
Pakistan must outstrip India in the nuclear race to counter its neighbour, which is “fomenting instability” and was aiming to dismember this country as part of an American-Indian-Israeli “satanic alliance”.
“To create tension in the region, foment instability in Pakistan and to break it up into two to four pieces, a satanic triangular alliance of America, India and Israel and their intelligence agencies has come about.
It claimed that Indian spy agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) has “already created a network in Afghanistan using Indian consulates where terrorists were being trained and being infiltrated into Pakistan in the guise of the Taliban”.
The editorial, which began by accusing former Afghan intelligence chief Amrullah Salah of working at the dictates of RAW to cause instability in Pakistan, castigated “fashions” such as “Aman ki Asha” peace initiative and sought to warn Pakistani intellectuals and politicians of the “real face” of India, with which no peace was possible.
It said there was “sufficient evidence of and witnesses to” the Indian involvement in various terrorist attacks in Pakistan, including the last month’s attacks on two Ahmadi places of worship in Lahore.
“Talking of peace with India is akin to feeding milk to a snake and instead of feeding the snake, it should be crushed. For this, we have nuclear power (capability). Until we defeat India in the nuclear race, it will keep on conspiring against us,” the editorial maintained.
As for Salah, who resigned June 6 after the Taliban attack on a peace jirga in Kabul, the editorial said he had spent his whole life working against Pakistan’s interests and was in constant touch with RAW, which had even provided him staff for his “nefarious designs”.
He was also accused of being behind reports in The Sunday Times and by the London School of Economics that charged Pakistan’s spy agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of still covertly supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Also, Salah had demanded a free hand for his “work” from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and on being refused, threatened to plunge the entire region into bloodshed, the editorial said.
It said after his resignation, Salah – an ethnic Tajik from the Panjshir Valley who had worked with charismatic guerrilla leader Ahmad Shah Masood – was working full time for RAW.
Apart from involvement in various terrorist outrages in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Multan, the editorial alleged that RAW operatives had tied up with violent criminals in Balochistan in an attempt to cripple Pakistan’s economy.
It said Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had given proof of this to his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh during their meeting on the margins of the Non-Aligned Movement summit at Sharm-el Sheikh and demanded that these activities be stopped forthwith.
Manmohan Singh had promised to assess the evidence but the opposition, including from his own party, he faced when he returned to India, prevented any action and these activities continued unabated, the editorial said.