Common Purpose, who are they?

[tangerine_sedge]

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

I've been on many Management training courses where Chatham House rules apply, primarily to ensure that people can talk openly about their experiences and problems as part of group conversations. Nothing sinister about that.

[turbobloke]

tangerine_sedge said:

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.

Which comment addresses none of the shady aspects of Common Purpose training.

The idea that CP "graduates" are made better is quite an interesting concept, it can't be a widely applicable concept (Rotherham, Staffs, Border Agency, HMRC and more as detailed on this thread and others) and still the points remain: public money funds CP, with suspicions around its aims and modus operandi already detailed and which has a certain appeal to public sector mediocrities who are over-promoted to preside over failure which we pay for.

[carinaman]

steveatesh posted this article:

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/06/m...

It mentions the Leveson Inquiry. Aren't many of the chosen ones that know what's best for us involved in the Leveson Inquiry Common Purpose 'trained'?

Edited by carinaman on Saturday 13th June 13:45

[Countdown]

carinaman said:

It mentions the Leveson Inquiry. Aren't many of the chosen ones that know what's best for us involved in the Leveson Inquiry Common Purpose 'trained'?

Edited by carinaman on Saturday 13th June 13:45

Are they? And, if so, so what? What impact will having been trained by CP have on the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry?

I wonder if any of those being investigated by Leveson have also been CP trained?

[carinaman]

We don't need to know:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/23/michael...

[tangerine_sedge]

turbobloke said:

tangerine_sedge said:

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.

Which comment addresses none of the shady aspects of Common Purpose training.

The idea that CP "graduates" are made better is quite an interesting concept, it can't be a widely applicable concept (Rotherham, Staffs, Border Agency, HMRC and more as detailed on this thread and others) and still the points remain: public money funds CP, with suspicions around its aims and modus operandi already detailed and which has a certain appeal to public sector mediocrities who are over-promoted to preside over failure which we pay for.

Such a shady organisation that they have a website revealing their trustees, history, ethos and aims.

Common Purpose are a charity which are funded by lots of different organisations, some of which are public departments - so what?

Their current trustees (A mixed bag of Public & private) are :

The Right Reverend Timothy Stevens (Chair of Trustees) Bishop of Leicester
Caroline Stuart Director, Oracle Scotland
Eamonn Boylan Chief Executive, Stockport Council
Philip Wright Vice Chairman and non-executive Director, Barts Health
Simon Russell Director, Retail Operations Development, John Lewis
Tish Andrewartha Director Brand and Online Risk Management, PWC

It continues to bother me that there seems a campaign on here(*) to link CP to the various child abuse cases, as if CP was set up specifically to cover up bad management and enable child abuse.
Perhaps if as much time and effort was spent looking at the 1970's establishment and the Freemasons, you'd probably have a much better chance of actually finding a smoking gun.

(*) repeat the same message often enough and it begins to stick.

[Digga]

tangerine_sedge said:

Their current trustees (A mixed bag of Public & private) are :

The Right Reverend Timothy Stevens (Chair of Trustees) Bishop of Leicester
Caroline Stuart Director, Oracle Scotland
Eamonn Boylan Chief Executive, Stockport Council
Philip Wright Vice Chairman and non-executive Director, Barts Health
Simon Russell Director, Retail Operations Development, John Lewis
Tish Andrewartha Director Brand and Online Risk Management, PWC

Like hell are they. None are more than one degree removed from potential government or quasi-government influence.

There's not a single, red-in-tooth-and-claw business person in there.

[turbobloke]

tangerine_sedge said:

turbobloke said:

tangerine_sedge said:

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.

Which comment addresses none of the shady aspects of Common Purpose training.

The idea that CP "graduates" are made better is quite an interesting concept, it can't be a widely applicable concept (Rotherham, Staffs, Border Agency, HMRC and more as detailed on this thread and others) and still the points remain: public money funds CP, with suspicions around its aims and modus operandi already detailed and which has a certain appeal to public sector mediocrities who are over-promoted to preside over failure which we pay for.

Such a shady organisation that they have a website revealing their trustees, history, ethos and aims.

Does the BNP not do the same in terms of founders, leaders, history, aims?

It's ironic that you champion their apparent openness and transparency when the training takes place under the Chatham House rule that demands confidentiality.

Fail!

tangerine_sedge said:

Common Purpose are a charity which are funded by lots of different organisations, some of which are public departments - so what?

Public money spent on informing trainees how to lead outside authority, so what indeed. Blinkers on top of blinkers.

[tangerine_sedge]

Digga said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Their current trustees (A mixed bag of Public & private) are :

The Right Reverend Timothy Stevens (Chair of Trustees) Bishop of Leicester
Caroline Stuart Director, Oracle Scotland
Eamonn Boylan Chief Executive, Stockport Council
Philip Wright Vice Chairman and non-executive Director, Barts Health
Simon Russell Director, Retail Operations Development, John Lewis
Tish Andrewartha Director Brand and Online Risk Management, PWC

Like hell are they. None are more than one degree removed from potential government or quasi-government influence.

There's not a single, red-in-tooth-and-claw business person in there.

Apart from :

Caroline Stuart Director, Oracle Scotland
Simon Russell Director, Retail Operations Development, John Lewis
Tish Andrewartha Director Brand and Online Risk Management, PWC

?!? What you expect the CEO of PWC to sit on the board?

[tangerine_sedge]

turbobloke said:

Does the BNP not do the same in terms of founders, leaders, history, aims?

It's ironic that you champion their apparent openness and transparency when the training takes place under the Chatham House rule that demands confidentiality.

Fail!

And as stated previously, this is not unusual on management training courses when you want the participants to have open discussions about their experiences. I can only assume you've never been on management training courses.

Fail indeed!

tangerine_sedge said:

Common Purpose are a charity which are funded by lots of different organisations, some of which are public departments - so what?

turbobloke said:

Public money spent on informing trainees how to lead outside authority, so what indeed. Blinkers on top of blinkers.

So do you think that civil service managers shouldn't get training? Or do you think that should have no input to the training curriculum? Or do you think that the problem is that that they are tought to work around the processes(*)?

There seem to be a handful of the usual tin-foil blogs/sites(*1) which are anti-CP. These appear to be right wing, anti-EU, anti-BBC (sounds just like N,P&E doesn't it) and have no real evidence other than circumstantial back-of-a-fag-packet suggestions and innuendo. There seems to be in N,P&E a constant stream of attacks on standard targets (CP, BBC, anybody to the left of His Royal Highness Farage) which is getting boring. It's almost like someone somewhere (*2) has decided to launch a social media attack on anything vaguely 'left'.

Finally, I just want to make it clear that I have no relationship with CP, I have never worked in the public sector, I have never had CP training, no-one I know has ever had CP training, and I don't even believe that management training is *that* useful.

(*) working around the blockers as my US based multi-national corporate training (under Chatham house rules) described it.

(*1) Please show me a proper researched/investigated article from a reputable source. Note : a blog from some whacko in their mummies basement doesn't count.

(*2) puts on tinfoil hat - it's the lizards I tell you!

Edited by tangerine_sedge on Wednesday 24th June 14:48

[Digga]

tangerine_sedge said:

Apart from :

Caroline Stuart Director, Oracle Scotland
Simon Russell Director, Retail Operations Development, John Lewis
Tish Andrewartha Director Brand and Online Risk Management, PWC

?!? What you expect the CEO of PWC to sit on the board?

You don't see how the firms some of these people work for also do work for government? How JL is far from a typical business? You need to read the book "The Untouchables", it's about the Ireland but the basic principles are universal - always look for the conflict of interest.

Anyway, on other matter, how about this for anti-fragile: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093642/Ch...

[carinaman]

If Sue Berelowitz was talent spotted as a Future Leader that can Lead Beyond Authority who are we to argue?

[TTwiggy]

carinaman said:

If Sue Berelowitz was talent spotted as a Future Leader that can Lead Beyond Authority who are we to argue?

You must realise that when you type phrases like that – complete with capitalisation – you look like a conspiracy theory nutter.

[Digga]

TTwiggy said:

carinaman said:

If Sue Berelowitz was talent spotted as a Future Leader that can Lead Beyond Authority who are we to argue?

You must realise that when you type phrases like that – complete with capitalisation – you look like a conspiracy theory nutter.

Right now, there are a lot of people with egg on their faces for dismissing a lot less plausible matters as conspiracies.

[Esseesse]

Digga said:

TTwiggy said:

carinaman said:

If Sue Berelowitz was talent spotted as a Future Leader that can Lead Beyond Authority who are we to argue?

You must realise that when you type phrases like that – complete with capitalisation – you look like a conspiracy theory nutter.

Right now, there are a lot of people with egg on their faces for dismissing a lot less plausible matters as conspiracies.

Also... Conspiracy: 2 or more people trying to further their aims by not revealing their true intentions. Surely happens regularly.

[carinaman]

Esseesse said:

Also... Conspiracy: 2 or more people trying to further their aims by not revealing their true intentions. Surely happens regularly.

So she takes voluntary redundancy and then gets a contract doing the same thing at £1K a day even though new regulations were introduced to stop to it.

It would seem that involved more than two people.

[Digga]

carinaman said:

Esseesse said:

Also... Conspiracy: 2 or more people trying to further their aims by not revealing their true intentions. Surely happens regularly.

So she takes voluntary redundancy and then gets a contract doing the same thing at £1K a day even though new regulations were introduced to stop to it.

It would seem that involved more than two people.

Precisely.

It's not just PH that think that's more than a little bent; and neither is it just George Osborne; even Keith (can't lie straight in bed) Vaz has piped-up.

[carinaman]

Camila Batmanghelidjh?

[tangerine_sedge]

carinaman said:

Camila Batmanghelidjh?

Ted Heath?

[carinaman]

Seems unlikely as Wikipedia says Common Purpose was founded in 1989.

I think it's more likely that Ted Heath was one of those Freemasons of the Land types.