Common Purpose, who are they?

Author
Discussion

tangerine_sedge

4,699 posts

217 months

Wednesday 13th May 2015
quotequote all
audidoody said:
OK.

As you're a bit slow off the mark today perhaps I can be of assistance.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Lin%2BHomer%2BCommon%2BPurpos...
Thanks for that, but posting a link stating "this is everything you need to know about CP" which just directs to a wiki entry about someone who's had a bad career, is the equivalent of me posting a link to an autotrader advert for a VW Golf when asked about common VW Golf problems.

Digga

40,204 posts

282 months

Wednesday 13th May 2015
quotequote all
tangerine_sedge said:
How does that differ from the many management bullst courses available from other sources?
Because when private businesses screw up - whether or not as a result of some nebulous course the management attended - the only impact is on customers, creditors and investors.

When an organisation (in this case one that was originally set up within John Prescott's office) has influence over very large parts of public and private sector organisations, as well as the media, the effect it can have and the societal changes it can make are significant and, rather worrying.

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Wednesday 13th May 2015
quotequote all
Digga said:
tangerine_sedge said:
How does that differ from the many management bullst courses available from other sources?
Because when private businesses screw up - whether or not as a result of some nebulous course the management attended - the only impact is on customers, creditors and investors.

When an organisation (in this case one that was originally set up within John Prescott's office) has influence over very large parts of public and private sector organisations, as well as the media, the effect it can have and the societal changes it can make are significant and, rather worrying.
Wanting to attend a CP gig and become a 'Matrix Graduate' ranks alongside wanting to be an MP, there's a Shakespearian matter of promoting desire while lacking performance - if it ever existed ouside of aspiration, which of itself is no bad thing but also of itself necessary but not sufficient and not a good predictor.

dudleybloke

19,717 posts

185 months

carinaman

21,214 posts

171 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
Wasn't that Channel 4 News anchor at the Hay book festival in the same discussion with Sue Berelowitz?

tangerine_sedge

4,699 posts

217 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
Get your tin foil hats out! As pointed out earlier, I love this line from the website :

whackonutjobwebsiteinsomeonesbasement said:
I have not received any legal challenge or complaint from Common Purpose or its named associates about the allegations of corruption made on this website. Why not?
Perhaps, because it's so obviously the work of someone who needs help? One step away from claiming that the queen is the lizard overlord!


NicD

3,281 posts

256 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
TE,

Your post makes no sense at all. The link gives a worrying list of useless troughers in the public sector.

wolves_wanderer

12,356 posts

236 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
tangerine_sedge said:
dudleybloke said:
Get your tin foil hats out! As pointed out earlier, I love this line from the website :

whackonutjobwebsiteinsomeonesbasement said:
I have not received any legal challenge or complaint from Common Purpose or its named associates about the allegations of corruption made on this website. Why not?
Perhaps, because it's so obviously the work of someone who needs help? One step away from claiming that the queen is the lizard overlord!
The list of other popular stories about chemtrails and holocaust "lies" on that website make your point rather well tangerine. :wibble:

Countdown

39,688 posts

195 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
Apparently Robert Peston is a member of the NWO.... rofl

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
wolves_wanderer said:
tangerine_sedge said:
dudleybloke said:
Get your tin foil hats out! As pointed out earlier, I love this line from the website :

whackonutjobwebsiteinsomeonesbasement said:
I have not received any legal challenge or complaint from Common Purpose or its named associates about the allegations of corruption made on this website. Why not?
Perhaps, because it's so obviously the work of someone who needs help? One step away from claiming that the queen is the lizard overlord!
The list of other popular stories about chemtrails and holocaust "lies" on that website make your point rather well tangerine. :wibble:
Out of interest, in what way do those points - which I will accept as accurate, not wanting to waste time checking up on the entire site - change the accuracy of the content specific to Common Purpose?

A website is perfectly capable of getting some content right, while other content wibbles away in the corner. The key thing is to be able to work out which is which, rather than use one element conveniently to smear another. It's obvious that such an approach has no fundamental validity. Any content anywhere needs to be judged on its own merits. If it wibbles, it wibbles. In this case we appear to be talking about a list of names rather than lizards wearing coloured ties.

wolves_wanderer

12,356 posts

236 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
tangerine_sedge said:
dudleybloke said:
Get your tin foil hats out! As pointed out earlier, I love this line from the website :

whackonutjobwebsiteinsomeonesbasement said:
I have not received any legal challenge or complaint from Common Purpose or its named associates about the allegations of corruption made on this website. Why not?
Perhaps, because it's so obviously the work of someone who needs help? One step away from claiming that the queen is the lizard overlord!
The list of other popular stories about chemtrails and holocaust "lies" on that website make your point rather well tangerine. :wibble:
Out of interest, in what way do those points - which I will accept as accurate, not wanting to waste time checking up on the entire site - change the accuracy of the content specific to Common Purpose?

A website is perfectly capable of getting some content right, while other content wibbles away in the corner. The key thing is to be able to work out which is which, rather than use one element conveniently to smear another. It's obvious that such an approach has no fundamental validity. Any content anywhere needs to be judged on its own merits. If it wibbles, it wibbles. In this case we appear to be talking about a list of names rather than lizards wearing coloured ties.
so you accept that Robert Peston and David Cameron are NWO stooges?

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
tangerine_sedge said:
dudleybloke said:
Get your tin foil hats out! As pointed out earlier, I love this line from the website :

whackonutjobwebsiteinsomeonesbasement said:
I have not received any legal challenge or complaint from Common Purpose or its named associates about the allegations of corruption made on this website. Why not?
Perhaps, because it's so obviously the work of someone who needs help? One step away from claiming that the queen is the lizard overlord!
The list of other popular stories about chemtrails and holocaust "lies" on that website make your point rather well tangerine. :wibble:
Out of interest, in what way do those points - which I will accept as accurate, not wanting to waste time checking up on the entire site - change the accuracy of the content specific to Common Purpose?

A website is perfectly capable of getting some content right, while other content wibbles away in the corner. The key thing is to be able to work out which is which, rather than use one element conveniently to smear another. It's obvious that such an approach has no fundamental validity. Any content anywhere needs to be judged on its own merits. If it wibbles, it wibbles. In this case we appear to be talking about a list of names rather than lizards wearing coloured ties.
so you accept that Robert Peston and David Cameron are NWO stooges?
hehe

I was going to say that's an amazing piece of mind reading there, given I said nothing along those lines, but then it can't be because you have no idea about what I accept or reject. That would require sufficient time and inclination on my part to carry out intensive further research, as I don't take anyone's word for pretty much anything - including yours, none intended.

My post said nothing along those lines, it was simply pointing out the fundamental lack of validity in using one element of content to smear another. The Guardian, with Monbiot and Toynbee on board, has moments that eclipse the Mail at full howl, but that doesn't mean that other material in The Guardian is automatically barking.

wolves_wanderer

12,356 posts

236 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
tangerine_sedge said:
dudleybloke said:
Get your tin foil hats out! As pointed out earlier, I love this line from the website :

whackonutjobwebsiteinsomeonesbasement said:
I have not received any legal challenge or complaint from Common Purpose or its named associates about the allegations of corruption made on this website. Why not?
Perhaps, because it's so obviously the work of someone who needs help? One step away from claiming that the queen is the lizard overlord!
The list of other popular stories about chemtrails and holocaust "lies" on that website make your point rather well tangerine. :wibble:
Out of interest, in what way do those points - which I will accept as accurate, not wanting to waste time checking up on the entire site - change the accuracy of the content specific to Common Purpose?

A website is perfectly capable of getting some content right, while other content wibbles away in the corner. The key thing is to be able to work out which is which, rather than use one element conveniently to smear another. It's obvious that such an approach has no fundamental validity. Any content anywhere needs to be judged on its own merits. If it wibbles, it wibbles. In this case we appear to be talking about a list of names rather than lizards wearing coloured ties.
so you accept that Robert Peston and David Cameron are NWO stooges?
hehe

I was going to say that's an amazing piece of mind reading there, given I said nothing along those lines, but then it can't be because you have no idea about what I accept or reject. That would require sufficient time and inclination on my part to carry out intensive further research, as I don't take anyone's word for pretty much anything - including yours, none intended.

My post said nothing along those lines, it was simply pointing out the fundamental lack of validity in using one element of content to smear another. The Guardian, with Monbiot and Toynbee on board, has moments that eclipse the Mail at full howl, but that doesn't mean that other material in The Guardian is automatically barking.
It was a question, not a statement, hence the question mark. I was trying to ascertain how barking something needs to be for you to ignore it. I will stick with assuming that articles written as if they have been scrawled in the back of a mental patient's notebook on a website full of conspiracy guff are probably all rubbish.

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
tangerine_sedge said:
dudleybloke said:
Get your tin foil hats out! As pointed out earlier, I love this line from the website :

whackonutjobwebsiteinsomeonesbasement said:
I have not received any legal challenge or complaint from Common Purpose or its named associates about the allegations of corruption made on this website. Why not?
Perhaps, because it's so obviously the work of someone who needs help? One step away from claiming that the queen is the lizard overlord!
The list of other popular stories about chemtrails and holocaust "lies" on that website make your point rather well tangerine. :wibble:
Out of interest, in what way do those points - which I will accept as accurate, not wanting to waste time checking up on the entire site - change the accuracy of the content specific to Common Purpose?

A website is perfectly capable of getting some content right, while other content wibbles away in the corner. The key thing is to be able to work out which is which, rather than use one element conveniently to smear another. It's obvious that such an approach has no fundamental validity. Any content anywhere needs to be judged on its own merits. If it wibbles, it wibbles. In this case we appear to be talking about a list of names rather than lizards wearing coloured ties.
so you accept that Robert Peston and David Cameron are NWO stooges?
hehe

I was going to say that's an amazing piece of mind reading there, given I said nothing along those lines, but then it can't be because you have no idea about what I accept or reject. That would require sufficient time and inclination on my part to carry out intensive further research, as I don't take anyone's word for pretty much anything - including yours, none intended.

My post said nothing along those lines, it was simply pointing out the fundamental lack of validity in using one element of content to smear another. The Guardian, with Monbiot and Toynbee on board, has moments that eclipse the Mail at full howl, but that doesn't mean that other material in The Guardian is automatically barking.
It was a question, not a statement, hence the question mark. I was trying to ascertain how barking something needs to be for you to ignore it. I will stick with assuming that articles written as if they have been scrawled in the back of a mental patient's notebook on a website full of conspiracy guff are probably all rubbish.
You must have a laugh a minute if you read The Guardian regularly wink

tangerine_sedge

4,699 posts

217 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
tangerine_sedge said:
dudleybloke said:
Get your tin foil hats out! As pointed out earlier, I love this line from the website :

whackonutjobwebsiteinsomeonesbasement said:
I have not received any legal challenge or complaint from Common Purpose or its named associates about the allegations of corruption made on this website. Why not?
Perhaps, because it's so obviously the work of someone who needs help? One step away from claiming that the queen is the lizard overlord!
The list of other popular stories about chemtrails and holocaust "lies" on that website make your point rather well tangerine. :wibble:
Out of interest, in what way do those points - which I will accept as accurate, not wanting to waste time checking up on the entire site - change the accuracy of the content specific to Common Purpose?

A website is perfectly capable of getting some content right, while other content wibbles away in the corner. The key thing is to be able to work out which is which, rather than use one element conveniently to smear another. It's obvious that such an approach has no fundamental validity. Any content anywhere needs to be judged on its own merits. If it wibbles, it wibbles. In this case we appear to be talking about a list of names rather than lizards wearing coloured ties.
It's the conspiracy theory bks that I object to. I'm willing to accept that Common Purpose are st at training senior leaders, I accept that lots of people in similar jobs socialise and do the same training courses, but I refuse to jump to the conclusion that it's all some Marxist tin-foil conspiracy.

I used to work in a specific industry, one in which there were only a handful of training companies. Almost everybody had attended at least one training course. This is only the same as Common Purpose, similar people doing similar jobs attend similar training sessions. There's an amusing tendency for people on the Internet to draw correlations where none exist. I'm sure that I could provide a list of names of people who attended my industry training and went on to do bad things and develop a suitable 'theory' but it would all be bks like this website...

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
tangerine_sedge said:
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
tangerine_sedge said:
dudleybloke said:
Get your tin foil hats out! As pointed out earlier, I love this line from the website :

whackonutjobwebsiteinsomeonesbasement said:
I have not received any legal challenge or complaint from Common Purpose or its named associates about the allegations of corruption made on this website. Why not?
Perhaps, because it's so obviously the work of someone who needs help? One step away from claiming that the queen is the lizard overlord!
The list of other popular stories about chemtrails and holocaust "lies" on that website make your point rather well tangerine. :wibble:
Out of interest, in what way do those points - which I will accept as accurate, not wanting to waste time checking up on the entire site - change the accuracy of the content specific to Common Purpose?

A website is perfectly capable of getting some content right, while other content wibbles away in the corner. The key thing is to be able to work out which is which, rather than use one element conveniently to smear another. It's obvious that such an approach has no fundamental validity. Any content anywhere needs to be judged on its own merits. If it wibbles, it wibbles. In this case we appear to be talking about a list of names rather than lizards wearing coloured ties.
It's the conspiracy theory bks that I object to. I'm willing to accept that Common Purpose are st at training senior leaders, I accept that lots of people in similar jobs socialise and do the same training courses, but I refuse to jump to the conclusion that it's all some Marxist tin-foil conspiracy.

I used to work in a specific industry, one in which there were only a handful of training companies. Almost everybody had attended at least one training course. This is only the same as Common Purpose, similar people doing similar jobs attend similar training sessions. There's an amusing tendency for people on the Internet to draw correlations where none exist. I'm sure that I could provide a list of names of people who attended my industry training and went on to do bad things and develop a suitable 'theory' but it would all be bks like this website...
While taking several of your points, I'd wager that there's no suspicion around aims of the alternative training including help for mediocre people in attendance to use knowledge they gain to work and 'lead' outside authority. Clearly there will be people who do a carp job after receiving other training, but that's nowhere near the point.

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
Also, few if any private sector training providers receive public funding, nor is there even a suspicion that they routinely operate under Chatham House Rules.

dudleybloke

19,717 posts

185 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
If they are not up to something dodgy then why the secrecy?


If CP is that good then why don't they name the people who have been on the course.

If it was nothing to worry about they would proudly say who is common purpose.

Edited by dudleybloke on Saturday 13th June 11:21

Countdown

39,688 posts

195 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
If they are not up to something dodgy then why the secrecy?


If CP is that good then why don't they name the people who have been on the course.

If it was nothing to worry about they would proudly say who is common purpose.

Edited by dudleybloke on Saturday 13th June 11:21
Would PH give out the names/addresses/emails of its members? If not, why not? Ergo they must be up to no good, innit?

p.s. I', fairly sure an FOI to your Council would reveal who has attended a CP course so I don't think it's as "cloak and dagger" as you may be suggesting.

tangerine_sedge

4,699 posts

217 months

Saturday 13th June 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
While taking several of your points, I'd wager that there's no suspicion around aims of the alternative training including help for mediocre people in attendance to use knowledge they gain to work and 'lead' outside authority. Clearly there will be people who do a carp job after receiving other training, but that's nowhere near the point.
Isn't the point of all training to take someone and make them better at doing something? If that role was senior management then I'd expect it to also include networking and experience sharing outside your current organisation.