Common Purpose, who are they?

[carinaman]

Digga said:

don't think that scratches the surface of it.

Yes, they have followers in all three of the (previous) main parties, but also have influence throughout the public sector and police - especially W. Mids it would seem.

ETA frankly, anyone reading the published facts in the last two articles and not finding any dots to join up is rather obtuse.

Do you think there could be a Common Purpose involvement in Dr Sonia Sharp getting that job in Australia despite her failures to safeguard children at Rotherham?

[Esseesse]

carinaman said:

Are the Common Purpose tentacles wrapped around the ConDem coalition? I don't think their influence is restricted to the left, or what passes for the left in 2015.

I'd concur with the previous post, if anything (not saying they are or not) it could well be LibLabCon.

Anyone who seriously thinks the Torys are conservative, or are socially right leaning/wing (slight distinction) are in denial.

For example... it may be un-PC to oppose in 2015 (thanks to Common Purpose and the like?), but the normalisation of homosexuality and legalising of gay marriage is a socially left thing to do. It's not conservative (what radical change is), and it's not right leaning/wing (which IMO as it happens is synonymous with social conservatism).

Aside: I merely make the distinction between conservative and 'right leaning' because in another situation if the historical normal was a left of centre position, then I suppose conservatism in that instance would also be 'left'. The Tory party are regularly described as 'right' and 'conservative', in many ways (most?) they are neither.

[Digga]

carinaman said:

Digga said:

don't think that scratches the surface of it.

Yes, they have followers in all three of the (previous) main parties, but also have influence throughout the public sector and police - especially W. Mids it would seem.

ETA frankly, anyone reading the published facts in the last two articles and not finding any dots to join up is rather obtuse.

Do you think there could be a Common Purpose involvement in Dr Sonia Sharp getting that job in Australia despite her failures to safeguard children at Rotherham?

I don't know, but to an extent, any industry or profession is a matter or who you know, so that in itself might not be any more or less useless/sinister than it seems at face value.

[Esseesse]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10423070/...

"David Cameron officially declares that he is patron of an initiative run by Common Purpose, a charity linked to the campaign for tougher regulation of the Press"

[Esseesse]

Digga said:

carinaman said:

Digga said:

don't think that scratches the surface of it.

Yes, they have followers in all three of the (previous) main parties, but also have influence throughout the public sector and police - especially W. Mids it would seem.

ETA frankly, anyone reading the published facts in the last two articles and not finding any dots to join up is rather obtuse.

Do you think there could be a Common Purpose involvement in Dr Sonia Sharp getting that job in Australia despite her failures to safeguard children at Rotherham?

I don't know, but to an extent, any industry or profession is a matter or who you know, so that in itself might not be any more or less useless/sinister than it seems at face value.

Sonia Sharp is a member of CP it would seem. Is this in question?

[carinaman]

Esseesse said:

I'd concur with the previous post, if anything (not saying they are or not) it could well be LibLabCon.

All three have paedophile skeletons in their cupboards that would be politically inconvenient and so there could be temptations to keep it hidden like it was in Rotherham, with even the Home Office knowing about it a decade ago?

Esseesse said:

Anyone who seriously thinks the Tories are conservative, or are socially right leaning/wing (slight distinction) are in denial.

For example... it may be un-PC to oppose in 2015 (thanks to Common Purpose and the like?), but the normalisation of homosexuality and legalising of gay marriage is a socially left thing to do. It's not conservative (what radical change is), and it's not right leaning/wing (which IMO as it happens is synonymous with social conservatism).

Where do those changes to societal values sit with the PIE/NCCL/Liberty stuff that the Daily Mail seemed to be keen on exposing and queried by Derek Smith PHer and former police officer in his Cyril Smith revelations thread?

Were the PIE/NCCL group lobbying to normalise sex with kids Marxists?

From the Radio 4 Stats show, More or Less 'Correlation is not Causation'?

In Rotherham did council employees disprove of UKIP supporting foster parents while burying and denying what was going on with the industrial scale sexual exploitation of young girls? That inconsistency was due to a political agenda, political correctness, corruption, votes or securing jobs and pensions?

Edited by carinaman on Friday 13th February 15:30

[Esseesse]

I cannot answer the above questions. Maybe someone else can.

Sex education's roots are in Marxism however, I'm quite certain.

[carinaman]

Esseesse said:

Sonia Sharp is a member of CP it would seem. Is this in question?

I don't know. It would seem researching online that she moved jobs to Sheffield before getting her job in Australia, and Common Purpose is mentioned on the Rothpol Rotherham political blog website. It's an assumption.

Esseesse said:

I cannot answer the above questions. Maybe someone else can.

Sex education's roots are in Marxism however, I'm quite certain.

It's not my field either.

I find it unsettling that when I deal with the police or NHS that there could be networks of people working to some hidden agenda that's not stated beside door, like some places have a statement about the findings of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report and institutionalised racism.

All the stuff in the news about workplace bullying and shutting down whistleblowers in the NHS. Some that of that could be CP related? CP are looking to control the press? There's a law that contrains and restricts police whistle blowers?

Edited by carinaman on Friday 13th February 15:41

[jogon]

carinaman said:

Esseesse said:

Sonia Sharp is a member of CP it would seem. Is this in question?

I don't know. It would seem researching online that she moved jobs to Sheffield before getting her job in Australia, and Common Purpose is mentioned on the Rothpol Rotherham political blog website. It's an assumption.

Esseesse said:

I cannot answer the above questions. Maybe someone else can.

Sex education's roots are in Marxism however, I'm quite certain.

It's not my field either.

I find it unsettling that when I deal with the police or NHS that there could be networks of people working to some hidden agenda that's not stated beside door, like some places have a statement about the findings of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report and institutionalised racism.

All the stuff in the news about workplace bullying and shutting down whistleblowers in the NHS. Some that of that could be CP related? CP are looking to control the press? There's a law that contrains and restricts police whistle blowers?

Edited by carinaman on Friday 13th February 15:41

Yep and it doesn't get any better in the schools or universities and will only get worse if that weirdo Tristram Hunt has anyhting to do with it what with sex education for 5 year olds and every teacher sent on a CP course.

[Digga]

carinaman said:

All the stuff in the news about workplace bullying and shutting down whistleblowers in the NHS. Some that of that could be CP related? CP are looking to control the press? There's a law that contrains and restricts police whistle blowers?

Top-down, totalitarian dogma doesn't need pesky whistleblowers. (Although I think now there is disussion about the fact that discouraging them might be a bad thing, but we're a few years down the line from where that ought to have been plainly obvious.)

[steveT350C]

just seen this tweeted, link not a repost, sorry if contents are..

http://www.tpuc.org/692/

[tangerine_sedge]

Esseesse said:

I cannot answer the above questions. Maybe someone else can.

Sex education's roots are in Marxism however, I'm quite certain.

Some sex education was provided during the late Victorian time, primarily as part of the desire at the time by liberal Victorians to educate the working classes (also see the rise of Mary Stopes, public lending libraries and state funded schooling).

Widespread (though very basic, i.e. birds & bees) sex education was introduced post war primarily to counteract the increase in VD at that time (i.e. lots of people movement across Europe and men being away from home).

It only really started becoming more graphic (i.e. actually showing pictures of men and women) during the early 70's, and was probably due to the social changes at the time (i.e. changes in birth control and a more liberal approach to sex).

The thought that somehow educating our children is a marxist conspiracy seems a little bit tin-foil hattery to me...

[tangerine_sedge]

jogon said:

Yep and it doesn't get any better in the schools or universities and will only get worse if that weirdo Tristram Hunt has anyhting to do with it what with sex education for 5 year olds and every teacher sent on a CP course.

Sex education for children is bad because? Do you think they'll be showing the kiddies hardcore stuff, or just some age-appropriate picture book relationship stuff?

I don't think Tristram Hunt said that all teachers will be forced to go on CP training. I think he said that all teaches should be qualified and trained. You know, like other professionals.

Never let a good tin-foil conspiracy get in the way of facts.

[carinaman]

Regardless of how we vote in May we're going to get Common Purpose.

[Esseesse]

tangerine_sedge said:

Esseesse said:

I cannot answer the above questions. Maybe someone else can.

Sex education's roots are in Marxism however, I'm quite certain.

Some sex education was provided during the late Victorian time, primarily as part of the desire at the time by liberal Victorians to educate the working classes (also see the rise of Mary Stopes, public lending libraries and state funded schooling).

Widespread (though very basic, i.e. birds & bees) sex education was introduced post war primarily to counteract the increase in VD at that time (i.e. lots of people movement across Europe and men being away from home).

It only really started becoming more graphic (i.e. actually showing pictures of men and women) during the early 70's, and was probably due to the social changes at the time (i.e. changes in birth control and a more liberal approach to sex).

The thought that somehow educating our children is a marxist conspiracy seems a little bit tin-foil hattery to me...

Who said anything about a conspiracy? I said roots, i.e. where the idea comes from. See Georg Lukács/Hungarian Bolshevik.

[dudleybloke]

Common purpose is a lot like common core in the USA which in turn is rather like Mao's communist mantra.
Very worrying.

[carinaman]

Pesty mentioned Jack Straw's brother in the Rotherham resignation thread.

It seems Jack Straw has at least two brothers, and given the Demos reference could have been having a bit of a dig at Common Purpose:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/jack-...


Chris Grayling has managed to make life more difficult to those that want to resort to Judicial Reviews as he thinks they're open to misuse by left wingers intent on conspiring against the government's objectives.

Perhaps he should have been more worried about the prevalence of Common Purpose conspiring within the public sector than people misusing Judicial Reviews?

[DJRC]

Carina old chap, has anybody ever told you you have a problem?

[carinaman]

DJRC said:

Carina old chap, has anybody ever told you you have a problem?

Yeah, but I am working on it. As someone has posted in SP&L once, the wheels of justice turn slowly.

[jogon]

It looks like two UKIP MEPs are also graduates of Common Purpose - http://www.cpexposed.com/graduates - Suzanne Evans and Jane Collins. Certainly worth keeping an eye on. This organisation has no limits or boundaries it seems.

Shame I liked Suzanne.