Over the past few months I’ve become increasingly aware of the fact that a lot of conspiracy theories these days seem to revolve around an organisation called Common Purpose. Not a secret organisation, Common Purpose aims to “give leaders the skills, the connections and the vision they need to lead more effectively”.
It’s a training organisation. But it’s also a networking organisation and that’s where the wilder theories come in. My old friends EU truth seem to be doing a lot of the running here (their site is certainly the second Google hit, which suggests that David “EU plant” Cameron’s mates at Google UK aren’t doing their jobs properly). They have a pdf you can download and some stuff on YouTube. It all, um, seems a bit vague:
So my question to you dear reader is this: where’s the beef? If you have some strong evidence to prove that Common Purpose is indeed a “criminal organisation” let’s have it. I’m fascinated.
(The thing I realised from reading Them by Jon Ronson a couple of years ago is that the truth is often not what the loons think it is but is fascinating nonetheless).
I worked with people who got involved with Common Purpose and it was purely a way of people in business to learn from each other and find out more about the city they worked in, as well as networking of course. It actually sounded quite interesting and I seem to remember the local council being really supportive.
Given how innocuous the organisation is, it is, as you imply, definitely one of the stranger conspiracy theories around.
On the other hand, that may just be what They want you to think! 🙂
As someone who actually works at Common Purpose – I can tell you that I’m equally amazed and perplexed over why the conspiracy nuts would pick on us… If infiltration equals sales, then couldn’t you say Tesco has infiltrated the UK? LOL… it’s all nonsense, but entertaining nonsense! Bless ’em.
If that’s the case, why is it so secretive? Why does it observe Chatham House Rules i.e. no agenda’s or minutes taken at meetings?
Why is information not freely available when asked for from local councils and the police force? Why would the Police force need networking facilities?
Why is it classified as a Charity when it would appear it’s motives are wholly political and commercially motivated?
It is a subsidiary of the Council on Foreign Relations whose members are strong advocates of the New World Order – One World Government?
Why does it openly promulgate the ‘post democratic era’.
Why was it an active part of Prescott’s job as deputy prime minister but never made public without an MP probing with questions in the House of Commons?
What is such a spiritual man doing caring about such things?
Because I speak The Truth and the people behind Common Purpose hate The Truth. They are what the Holy Scriptures call a stronghold or a domain of the Devil and my job is to bring down strongholds.
I don’t care about things of any description but I do care about people and people have to be made aware of what is really going on. Whether or not they do anything about it, is not my responsibility.
I recommend to you my article: For We Wrestle Not Against Flesh and Blood But Against Spiritual Wickedness in High Places – Part 1.
For money changers outside the Temple in Jerusalem read International Banking Conspirators who finance the CFR who in turn support Common Purpose.
These people, as the money changers before them, make The Lord Jesus Christ very very angry indeed.
I am deeply suspicious of Common Purpose. These types of organisations are uncomfortably close to freemasonry and like freemasonry, they appear inocuous and harmless at the lower level but they definitely have motives that are questionable and a matter of concern at a higher level.
CP originates from The Council on Foreign Relations, the secretive Ameican think tank that has inspired the drift towards globalism and one world government. Any political movement that is inspired by the CFR should be treated with the deepest suspicion.
Most worring of all is the public funding of CP and its operation under Chatham House Rules.
If it is so harmless and inocuous, why does it operate under such secrecy? The answer is obvious. It’s true raison d’etre must be highly questionable
Common Purpose documents
http://www.scribd.com/people/view/344877-fotley
Q – If that’s the case, why is it so secretive? Why does it observe Chatham House Rules i.e. no agenda’s or minutes taken at meetings?
B – Eh . . it’s a training organisation. They don’t take minutes on training courses. The training sessions operate under Chatham House Rules so that people can talk freely about problems or issues.
Q – Why is information not freely available when asked for from local councils and the police force? Why would the Police force need networking facilities?
A – What information are you looking for? The outline training progammes – the prospetus if you like – are all available on their website. The police use Common Purpose to help their officers to think outside their silos and look at crime more strategically – important when so many police officers have limited formal education.
Q – Why is it classified as a Charity when it would appear it’s motives are wholly political and commercially motivated?
A – Education is a charitable objective under charities law. Therefore CP has charitable status. If you have evidence of a charity abusing its charitable status inform the Charities Commission. Its motives are not ‘political’ in any meaningful sense. Its mission is to provide leadership training.
Q – It is a subsidiary of the Council on Foreign Relations whose members are strong advocates of the New World Order – One World Government?
A – Is it? The accounts and reports lodged with the Charities Commission don’t mention this, and they should if what you are saying is true. If.
Q – Why does it openly promulgate the ‘post democratic era’.
A – I’ve read Julia Middleton (CP founders)’s latest book and she doesn’t mention the ‘post democratic era’ . . where are you getting this from?
Q – Why was it an active part of Prescott’s job as deputy prime minister but never made public without an MP probing with questions in the House of Commons?
A – How do you mean ‘an active part of’ his job? He wasn’t a trainer, was he?
More to the point RG, how can Common Purpose be both a secret organisation and one that “openly” pushes an agenda?
Read “P”s “secret” documents by the way – they’re a hoot! A bunch of emails where some council officers are advised to take FOI requests to the legal department (well, duh!) and some attendance lists of some meetings. Not exactly the Elder Protocols.
I’m not a Lib Dem member and came across this thread by accident, but I’m interested. I’ve come across theories that Common Purpose that do say they are a part of CFR. A former police officer, or something, hasdone research on them, look at this video:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3664960863576873594&hl=en-GB
I’m watching it now Simon. Utterly ridiculous. Gerrish’s entire modus operandi is to spread innuendo about pretty innocuous-looking emails.
The biggest laugh is that his entire conspiracy is based on reading a secret document on the Common Purpose that he couldn’t “download” for fear of leaving a footprint. If he couldn’t download it, how did he read it?
And, er, DEMOS are a communist – Trotskyist even – organisation? Haw!
Police Officers & Staff who sit on CP advisory groups
Steve Green Ch Constable Nottingham
Alistair McWhirter Ch Constable Suffolk (retired recently)
Morris Watts – Ch Superintendent D&C Police
Irene Curtis Chief Superintendent Lancashire Constabulary
David Whatton Deputy Ch Constable Greater Manchester Police
Sarah Brown Chief Superintendent Divisonal Commander – Bradford South, West Yorkshire Police
Jon Porter HR Director, North Yorkshire Police
Mr Alistair Finlay Assistant Chief Constable, Police Service of Northern Ireland
Simon Taylor Deputy Chief Constable, Norfolk Constabulary (ret)
Rob Cooper Chief SuperintendentCornwall & Isles of Scilly BCU Commander, Devon & Cornwall Constabul
Allan Johnston Director of Human Resources, Avon & Somerset Constabulary
Peter Wilson Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary (CHAIR FIFE ADVIOSRY GROUP)
Sue Scott Director of HR, Lincolnshire Police
Jan Stephens Chief Superintendent, Kent Police
Paul Cheeseman – Chief Superintendent -Humberside Police (RET)
Andrew Bliss Chief Superintendent Essex Police
Geoff Dodds – Ch Sup West Yorkshire Police
sean gabb – 2001
The Enemy Class exists in and around the public sector. It comprises the great majority of those administrators, lawyers, experts, educators and media people whose living is connected with the State.
They articulate and advance the interests of perhaps a million other people – from television producers, think tank wonks and heads of executive agencies, down through the university lecturers and social workers and white collar bureaucrats, to the lowest grades of civil servant and local government officer.Add to the list all the racism awareness and anti-aids consultants and the workers in those non-government organisations that receive money and status from or via the State.
These are the people who really govern the country. They are the ones who decide what statistics to gather and how and when to publish them. They decide what problems can be identified and what solutions can be discussed. They advise on policy and implement policy. Because of their numbers and education and beliefs, and the formal and informal bonds that hold them to each other, and because of their ability and willingness to give and withhold benefits, they set the tone of society. They can require not only external conformity to their will, but can even to some extent shape the public mind so that conformity seems right and natural. They provide the boundaries and language of debate. They define the heretics and schismatics, and arrange for them to be persecuted.
They are the Enemy Class by virtue of their legitimising ideologies. While many of these contradict each other, and while some may overlap at their fringes with positions accepted on some parts of the right, they all have in common that they are essentially ideologies of state activism. It is belief in an active, interfering state that justifies the collective power, money and status of the Enemy Class. And though some conservatives still romanticise state power, the activism we have faced for at least the past hundred years has been directed almost wholly to the destruction of both freedom and tradition. Using various justifications – national efficiency, racial hygiene, socialism, the war on drugs, environmentalism, “modernisation”, to name only a few – the Enemy Class has taxed and watched and controlled us. It has abolished organic, voluntary forms of association, and replaced them with bureaucratic centralism. It has obliterated old boundaries and jurisdictions -it is merging what remains of our Constitution into the unaccountable power structures of the European Union and the New World Order.
So, local Common Purpose advisory groups have a police representative.
What are we supposed to conclude from that?
Why has Common Purpose been allowed to set up an office inside a govt dept without paying a penny in rent for the last 11 years ?
Riotgrrl’s a cheerleader for Common Purpose….
from CP’s website
ANOTHER FREEBIE COURTESY OF THE TAXPAYER
Our thanks go to Ian Gunn, Governor at HMP Cornton Vale who kindly hosted a lunch for 20 of us in the autumn to help kickstart the recruitment process for the 2008 Forth Valley Focus. As a direct result of this event we are expecting to receive at least three applications from potential participants and have added a further four people and organisations who are going to be contributors to future programmes. A superb result!
AND ANOTHER COURTESY OF THE – HARD UP NHS
Stay Connected in Brighton & Hove
We ran the Brighton & Hove Graduate Connect event to bring together graduates from the past 13 years together on Wednesday 16 January at the Audrey Emerton Building, Brighton. The evening was kindly sponsored by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust and theme of the evening was “Is Diversity Alive & Kicking in Brighton & Hove?â€
Our Managing Director, Caroline Duckworth gave a keynote speech on the evening and the following contributors hosted some cafe conversations around diversity for us:
Jin McMartin, Deputy Chair, Chinese Educational Development Project, Chinese Centre
Barbara Harris, Head of Equality & Diversity, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
James May, Deputy Chairman of Shoreham Port Authority, Non-Executive Director & Honorary Treasurer of Sussex County Cricket Club & Non Executive Director of Brighton & Hove City Primary Care Trust
Simon Lewis, Strategic Administrator, City Coast Church
Mark Strong, Senior Consultant, Transport Initiatives LLP
Peter Deadman, Co-Founder, Infinity Foods & Practitioner of Chinese Medicine
Dany Louise, Creative Industries Arts Professional
A great evening was had by all with many old and new connections being made. Thank you to all those who attended
I don’t agree with everything Gerrish says, but what I can say is that following a meeting with my lawyer about some rather nasty things that happened to me, that Common Purpose is indeed something to be very wary of. We are dumbed down with talk of Human Rights. The fact is, CP seem to rule who has human rights and the rest of us are left to rot. That’s being kind. At some point I will make the meeting public so you can all decide for yourselves because the lawyer helped to delay my case until it was statute barred. It seems CP have such an influence over the legal profession that we need to seek protection FROM the law.. not through it.
This is not theory or speculation. I am speaking from experience, not from reading theories.
Common Purpose must be stopped: http://www.stopcp.com/
what do you make of this ? why would the law defend this action against innocent people?
You decide. Then think about your futures and your children’s futures. You should visit this site before going anywhere near Higher ed.
Sigh. I forgot how pointless it is trying on rationality when arguing wth conspiracy theorists. Riotgrrl’s responses to the various points are totally unreasonable but unfortunately not hysterical enough to satisfy those who really, really want an enemy to rile against (and if one doesn’t exist, then, by jiminy, we’ll invent one!). BTW, Common Purpose has never been associated with CFR. Yet more groundless accusations.
The whole attack seems so monumentally groundless. Why don’t the conspiracy theorists actually go on a programme? Bursaries are available! Imagine!
Jon Porter Noth Yorks Police and Common Purpose advisory group member North Yorkshire.
Common Purpose advisory group member- North Yorkshire suspended from Noth Yorkshire Police
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Police-pair-suspended-after-probe.4013623.jp
A SENIOR North Yorkshire police officer whose wife’s training company received more than £200,000 in payments from the force has been suspended and a file sent to the Crown Prosecution Service following an internal inquiry
Supt Paul Ackerley, previously in charge of training provision, is one of two senior North Yorkshire Police employees suspended over the affair. Although neither was named in a statement issued by the force yesterday, it can be revealed that the second member of staff sidelined is Jon Porter, director of human resources
That’s very interesting MB, except that
a) the prosecution appears to have nothing to do with Common Purpose; and
b) surely the fact that he has been suspended rather undermines your claims that Common Purpose people are untouchable?
Go on a CP training programme? If I ever get tired of thinking for myself I might take you up on that.
You didn’t answer my question?
Jack – repeating conspiracy theories parrot fashion doesn’t exactly constitute “thinking for yourself”
StopThePodulants – there was a question? Is that another question? Are they watching you? Right now?
Looks like it:
Quote from “Twitter ” communications
” I notice the Common Purpose obsessives now seem to think The Enemy are Pod People. Explains a lot. 08:54 PM April 20, 2008 from txt ”
http://www.podulantpeople.co.uk doesn’t even mention Common Purpose!!!! Podulantpeople.co.uk simply highlighted whats going on in Higher ed and the legal system. You seem to have made the connection though.
And you still didn’t answer the question. Not that I’ll bother reading anything else you have to say.
If Podulant People doesn’t mention Common Purpose, then what are you doing mentioning it on a thread about Common Purpose? And I still don’t know what question I’m supposed to be answering.
Elite trainer gets 11-year state freebie
06 May 2008
By Rob Waugh
A TRAINING provider which has enjoyed privileged access to Downing Street has been given free office accommodation in a Government department for the last 11 years, the Yorkshire Post can reveal today.
Common Purpose, which has run elite training seminars at Number 10, was granted free office space at the Department for Children, Schools and Families in Sheffield in 1997 and has enjoyed its use ever since.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Elite-trainer-gets-11year-state.4053633.jp
People do conspire. It’s a common human activity. It can be egalitarian (American Revolution), benign (Local Exchange & Trading Schemes), profit-driven (Common Purpose) or sinister (New World Order).
In my view, Common Purpose is primarily driven by profit-making. Privatisations have turned what was formerly provided at public expense for the public good into money-making schemes for those eager to make money. Education and training have to a certain extent been “privatised” and I believe that Common Purpose is Middleton’s way of cashing in.
What Common Purpose is NOT is egalitarian. The same old “it’s not what you know, but who you know, that counts”.
Maybe Common Purpose is a dodgy, money-grabbing scheme, I don’t know. I certainly find the allegations that its clubby nature can lead to some rather dodgy practices have a certain ring of truth.
But that’s the nature of all networking organisations, the old school tie, the Freemasons, you name it. What no-one has yet come up with is a scintilla of evidence that they are the Power Behind the Throne, responsible for using the EU as cover to abolish democracy. Or even that CP itself is corrupt as opposed to just a few individuals using it to line their own pockets.
We seem to have come a long way in this thread, from vast global conspiracy to a grubby money making scheme. Perhaps if CP’s critics concentrated on the latter rather than tying it in with fanciful stories about the former, they might make a bit more progress.
I have just completed a Common Purpose “Focus Programme” in Sheffield, and I would like to take this opportunity to dispel the myths and conspiracies that abound (especially by the far right BNP). I work in the voluntary sector and I am a free thinking libertarian with no religious belief, I only mention this for the sake of clarity. The programme that I have attended was aimed at leaders(managers) from across all sectors where it quickly became apparent that the key issues we all face on a daily basis are quite similar even though the context is often different, and that there may be ways of working collaboratively in order to maximise the impact of what is done for the good of all. There was certainly nothing of a sinister nature or any attempt at brainwashing, it was just a great opportunity to meet with a wide range of leaders and discuss issues to identify common ground that will enable us to work together to bring about positive change.
I suspect that like all things if people do not understand or take part in something there is an element that will ridicule or fear it, and there are lots of mischief makers out there with their own agendas. Please be assured that Common Purpose is a very good training organisation, I wholeheartedly advise anyone to take part in a programme and make up their own mind rather allow themselves to be influenced by people who fall into one of the categories I suggest.
As for “Chatham house “rules it is not helpful in a development programme if people are afraid to say how they feel on a personal level about the role that play in society!! It is therefore simply a mechanism that allows freedom of expression to take place among intelligent articulate people in order for effective exchange of views.
Check out http://mycommonpurposeexperience.wordpress.com
If CP is so dam good how come all we hear about the UK and the world in general is all negative, I have not heard or seen anything vaguely positive in the last ten or so years. This does not fill me with any hope for the future so perhaps it’s just a waste of good money that can be better used elsewhere?
It seems the conpiracy theory brigade are now even targeting speakers at Common Purpose events. Staf writes a good entry here on how the on “what happens when all these wonderful online social media tools (blogging, youtube and so on) we’re so fond of can actually turn around and bite us.” http://www.steflewandowski.com/2008/05/common-purpose-seven-foot-high-lizards/
@SiP thanks for the mention. I’ve started getting more emails too which is fun.
Reading personally delivered conspiracy theorist lunacy over breakfast really helps me to stick to my ‘laugh every day’ routine.
BTW – love the “Swivel-eyed loons” category. That nearly made me spit out my coffee…
I think that the trouble that CP has is to do with the fact that it appears to act as a bridge between lots of other things that are going on…. ahhh! that is how that person started talking to that person……
If people are keeping their eyes peeled then it cant help but raise questions…
I am completely rationally minded and the lack of concrete evidence that Gerrish presents does perturb me. But the simple verifiable facts do tend to make things smell a bit fishy.
For example. One claim is about CP bringing paedophiles together and protecting them. An extreme and bizarre claim at first viewing. But dont people remember “Operation Ore?” The paedophile operation run by the US police, which looked like becoming a major story, sat on the presses? Which was then the subject of a D notice by the government? Why would they do that? Could it be that some of their own needed protecting?
And if you go on the CP website it says that some of the stuff doing the rounds is defamatory, which it is… if it isnt true. So why dont CP have Brian Gerrish up? they could throw the book at him? but they havent?
The more ludicrous claims about EUSSR and the EU collective… are remarkable and would cause most people to reject them at first hand.
But didnt Ivan Litvinenko say on his deathbed that he hadnt gone to Italy to hide from Putin because KGB colleagues of his had told him that Euro greaseball Romano Prodi was an asset of theirs? A piece of news which quickly disappeared in the melee.
If Bildeburg is such nonsense it seems interesting that Blair, both Clintons, and now Obama are past or future attendees whose careers took considerable turns for the better shortly after attending or are set to.
People like me who keep a close eye on the media are able to make these connections, and the picture that can be seen is like that through a smashed, murky stained glass window. Distorted, but clear patches can be seen. The shape of something nasty behind the window can be discerned, in outline, but not in detail. And although Gerrish may be wrong, if he gets a lot of people looking around them with a new and rational eye and not depending on the drone TV and newsprint media, then he cant really have done anything but a service can he?
And dont let the desperate CP defense fool you folks… only obvious disinformation artists are going on about lizards and suchlike, presumably to cloud the message of more rational but curious folk.
Keep a clear head folks.. keep asking questions, and dont be fooled. Evil can only hide in a dark place. Shine the light of truth on it.
SiP, your constant use of ad hominem jibes and condescension as strategies to detract from those who you disagree with does nothing to promote your organisation or argument and marks you out as unskilled and ignorant in matters of debate. Common Purpose would do well to put someone else on the job here. And bringing in one of your cohorts Stef for an impromtu sneering session, serves only to add support to Brian Gerrish’s argument.
But you are here, so I have question for you. That people conspire and others, in turn, theorise as to why this might be so is surely a given. So why, then, do you view all those that try to get to the bottom of things as ‘nuts’? Should people not theorise about conspiracies?
Oh, and by the way. Whatever sort of plant Demos is, it’s roots are Marxist. http://www.demos.co.uk/people/martinjacques
Sorry for the delayed reaction LJC. Small matter of my wife having a baby – sure does put a perspective on things! And so I heartily apologise to any conspiracy theorists I have offended with the term “nuts”. I should keep an open mind about these things.
However, I can happily scorn and flick rubber bands at the loons with conspiracy theories about Common Purpose because I know it’s all poppycock! I work here!
SIP, yr comments about loons and nutters seems to be at odds with Common Ps convention.
Avoid both giving and taking offence
It is important that everyone feels able to say what they really think. When views are articulated bluntly or clumsily, we ask you to suspend instant judgment and enter into constructive discussion on them. We also ask you to communicate in a respectful way and to listen to any feedback as to why your ideas or language might cause offen
http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home/aboutus/conventions.aspx
What’s the difference between independent individuals studying bodies operating in the public sphere and ‘the loons with conspiracy theories’? Nothing, apparently, according to you, SiP, and others. Does the designation of such individuals or such activity depend on whether the findings are positive or negative in your view?
Lets ditch the labeling of participants in discourse and have some proper debate about what the words ‘beyond authority’ actually mean to those individuals not fortunate enough to identified as potential leaders — that is, most of the population. Come to think of it, how would you label those people, SiP?
I’ve spent an awful lot of time avoiding and denigrating workplace management bollocks. I don’t regard that type of linguistic control mechanism as a conspiracy. But I am naturally suspicious of anything that gives people with power a further means of separating themselves from those they control.
Just to set my stall out, my view is that CP offers a version of management bollocks.
Thoughts?
COMMON PURPOSE – BEYOND SCRUTINY
CP gets legal advice, but how did applicants names find their way on to a list compiled and distributed by Common Purpose?
Maybe SIP can tell us.
Training charity gets legal advice
By Paul Jump, Third Sector, 6 August 2008
Leadership training charity Common Purpose is taking legal advice about what it claims is a concerted, defamatory attack by right-wing political groups.
Several websites claim that the charity is dedicated to promoting the power of the EU, and the British National Party describes the organisation’s employees as “traitors”.
A statement on the BNP site reads: “The day will come when these people will have to answer for their crimes to this country.”
Earlier this year, Eurosceptic Conservative MP Philip Davies wrote to the Charity Commission to question Common Purpose’s charitable status (4 June, p4).
David Bell, a Common Purpose trustee, denied that it had a pro-EU agenda. “I have been closely involved with Common Purpose for more than 10 years and this is simply not the case,” he said.
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.
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/channels/Fundraising/Article/836794/Training-charity-gets-legal-advice/
Mark: You’re right my personal comments don’t meet the high standards of our organisational conventions. That kinda throws the “brainwashing” rubbish out the window, doesn’t it?
Neil: At last, a reasonable position. Yes, indeed, a discussion about what leading beyond authority means in practice would be great. I’d love to change your mind about the benefits of management training. It doesn’t have to be for “managers” (which is why we call it leadership development – because anyone can be a leader even if they are not in a managerial role). There’s a leading beyond authority blog here: http://commonpurpose.wordpress.com/
RT: The last paragraph of the story you pasted answers that one.
Dont forget, participation on the progs is “highly selective”
“The application will be submitted to your local Advisory Group. The Advisory Group is a cross-sector team of senior individuals in the community who provide support and guidance to local programme staff. Participation on the programmes is highly selective and the final decision rests with the Advisory Group”
The above description was pulled from Common Purposes site in April and changed to ……..
Application forms are submitted to the local Advisory Group. The Advisory Group comprises individuals with experience across all sectors in the programme’s geographical area. All are members in their own right, not representatives of their organisations or communities. Advisory Groups make decisions on whether an applicant demonstrates that they fulfil the application criteria.
Mmm…criteria eh.
Common Purpose guidlines for selection:
Beware having too many younger participants Experience shows they are less likely to be good at looking beyond their sector.
Beware also too many older participants: sometimes people have seniority but are past the peak of their influence.
COMMON PURPOSE – THE HIGHLY SELCETIVE CHARITY
sneakersfiftyfour@yahoo.co.uk
Yes, Sneakers, because the fact that we want a nice mix across ages, sectors and experience to create the best learning group (ask any trainer, they’ll fill you in on the theory) is some kind of ploy to take over the world. Obviously.
SiP
Why did you pull the “hightly selective” description from the site ?
Sneaks, believe it or not, words get changed on the website all the time. Only the other day a whole product description was rewritten. It’s what happens on a professional company website. I’d go on – but, quite frankly, no-one’s interested.
We are interested, SiP. That’s why we’re here. Thing is, we’ve got opinions based on experiences other than yours!
I’m here to be persuaded that the difference between leadership and management does not stem from intra and inter-organisational personnel status crisis. I’d also like to hear more about how leadership training is not fundamentally divisive and elitist.
Don’t give up now, the debate’s just started…
Okay Neil – just for you: http://commonpurpose.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/developing-competencies/
With respect, SIP, I was suggesting that we have a discussion rather than swap press release factoids.
Your condescending “just for you” remark — offered as a preamble to failing to engage with my comment — tells me a great deal about your perception of leadership and training.
Anyway, as one of the few people who’ve shown an interest in Common Purpose training methodology on the whole internet, this must make me a stakeholder of sorts, and possibly even an opinion former. I shall sit tight waiting for my invite to a leadership training event.
All the best!
Neil – sorry you feel slighted by the “just for you” comment! I was being genuine, though – it was just for you as you are one of the few people commenting here who isn’t more interested in a upcoming intergalactic takeover by lizard men. And, really, you didn’t read the link, did you? It’s not a press release – it’s a personal blog by our curriculum director! He’d be most upset at being called a factoid!
Thanks for your apology, SIP. I see that you genuinely want to discuss this matter. I appreciate that, like everyone reading this, you’ve limited time to devote to such discussions. I guess trawling for and responding to blog comments takes up more time than you’d like. There are more rewarding ways to spend time…
I did follow the link and I did read the content. I should have been more expansive in my comment.
I can see that the blog you linked to is all about discussing leadership and so on and I’ll be reading it with interest from now on. However, it seems heavy on facilitating discussion and a little light on content. For example, although I agree that “a written list with explanation, pointers to which elements of our programmes help a person to identify and then develop these” is a nice idea, surely that’s a matter for you and yours in your organisation, since you’re in charge of your own training programmes. Perhaps I’m not used to such reports of in-house discussions about policy directions: those sorts of meetings are outside my experience.
Also, although I was grateful for the link to a current discussion about the methodology of leadership training — and I’m pleased to see that you and your organisation are having an open debate about this — I was rather hoping for a direct response to my questions in this independent forum. That’s what I meant when I wrote about “press release factoids: I regarded your link, perhaps unfairly, as a second-hand response.
Having established a basis for sensible discussion about these matters, can we now please move the debate on from name calling? Viz. denigrating oppositional voices as those of people “interested in a upcoming intergalactic takeover by lizard men”? That tactic’s been used by both you and Stef Lewandowski — both of you are involved with Common Purpose training — and it’s getting old and irritating. Casting your opponents as such will help you control the debate in the very short term in small-scale forums, and will undoubtedly appeal to a lot of internet browsers, but it’ll not endear you in the slightest to thinking independent-minded people, or even those with ideological bents, and it may adversely affect your ability to communicate your message sensibly in the long term.
Can I spot obviously flippant comments? Yes. But I reserve the right to say I don’t like them.
Am I rejecting information given by you based on my preconceived idea about what Common Purpose is? No. I don’t have any preconceived ideas about your organisation: that’s why I want to discuss it! Like I say, I really appreciate your contact and I’ll keep reading the blog you linked to, as I’m interested in seeing how this debate on the methodology of leadership training develops.
Cheers
Neil
Thank you Neil. I am so used to irrational hostility that I can come across quite short. Today I received this comment: “Fuck off,you shabbos goy marxist cunt.” I receive several like this a week. Perhaps this goes some way to excuse my shortness… I realise that treating every exchange in the blogosphere with suspicion is playing right into these peoples’ hands – but, hey, I’m only human. Allegedly.
I also directed you to the blog for a discussion because as the online manager my part in the philosophical basis for our programmes’ curriculum is simply as a sounding board – I think Oliver is far better suited to conduct a discussion on methodology. However, for what it’s worth, I’ll give it a shot.
In reponse to: “I’m here to be persuaded that the difference between leadership and management does not stem from intra and inter-organisational personnel status crisis. I’d also like to hear more about how leadership training is not fundamentally divisive and elitist.”
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “personnel status crisis” so let me address the “elitist” proposal. If you are managing change within an organisation, one would expect you have a certain amount of defined authority to do so. This is “easy” leadership – you are basically calling down a chain of command.
This isn’t the type of leadership we concentrate on (although most management training does). What interests us is how you operate when the issue overlaps boundaries. Some issues require multiple departments to solve, for example. And you can’t simply tell someone what must be done in these cases – you may be workng with people on the same level or higher than you.
This is true on a societal level as well, of course. Campaigners, by definition, are always working at this level – they must use influential skills to engage – they don’t have the organisational authority to order change. This is what Common Purpose calls “leading beyond authority”. Further, I think the really important issues are always ones that cross “silos”, that require many fronts to be enagaged to solve. can the police alone solve knife crime? Or do we need youth organisations, schools, media organisations, government, independent campaigns and a host of others to come together?
Good leadership HAS to be inclusive; it has to look outside of “your own patch”, it has to engage and influence beyond the people you can simply order around to really find solutions.
By the way, I should point out in Stef’s absence that he has nothing to do with formulating Common Purpose training – he has completed one of our leadership development programmes – he’s simply commenting on the bewildering conspiracy theory that’s doing the rounds.
Thanks for that, SIP. Much appreciated.
It seems that leadership, CP-style, is a version of what used to be called management, which in turn replaced strictly hierarchical structures relying on… leadership, which was about getting things done.
Overall, as I suppose you’ve guessed by now, I think we need fewer leaders.
But if I were in favour of leadership, I’d probably choose your model, because it’s simple to understand and highlights the hierarchical structuration of intra and inter-organisational processes.
Incidentally, by “inter and inter-organisational personnel status crisis”, I mean that people often like to have their work and status confirmed by new, or reconstituted, ideas that reinvent their operational milieu as one of limitless potential.
Cheers
Neil
The big issue here is really simple. These people should just not have charitable status, even though that might mean changing the rules.
This is just not the kind of “education” that should be considered a charitable endeavor. They are a Management Consultancy re-packaging basic management training for profit and I’m sure the key staff are making lots of money out of it.
Surely that is the issue people should be highlighting, not making up conspiracy theories about CP being some kind of Empire of Dark Forces?
regards
Steve
are sip & riotgrrrl disinfo bots ???
i know this thread is old now but i have some queries about this subject if anyone would like to answer them
1 what does BG & Co have to gain from discrediting CP
does he have his own agenda?
2 why doesn’t CP raise their money from accepting donations/have fundraising events like most charities, instead of charging extortionate prices for seminars & trips to prisons,housing developments, businesses, hospitals and manufacturing plants
3 why should the taxpayer have to fund this charity ? who agreed to it?
& also clients from the private sector will be using it has a tax deductible expense
4 since CP started, has there been any notable changes in society as a whole due to the benefits of CP ??
5 why does CP quote this about there charity
“It is political, but not party political”
being political usually means that there are some believes one way or the other and aren’t charites supposed to be non bias & non political
6 how else could you paraphrase julie middletons CP bible “Beyond Authority” ?