Day Twenty Eight – News with a Common Purpose

A selection of News, first up a couple of references to Common Purpose:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/400867/Rotherham-Council-spent-30K-training-staff-in-secretive-society

http://yournewswire.com/rotherham-scandal-council-spent-30k-on-training-for-staff-in-secretive-society/

An old post that is now suddenly being read again:

https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/common-purpose-benign-or-dangerous/

Now  a couple of Twitter links:

https://twitter.com/Emma_Hoddinott/statuses/513421791759708160

https://twitter.com/SarahChampionMP/status/511245136236666880

An interesting Daily Mail piece:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763987/Educational-video-warning-Asian-grooming-gangs-schools-seven-years-ago-hardly-used-amid-fears-appearing-racist.html

The Star:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/abused-while-i-was-in-care-rotherham-victim-tells-her-story-1-6852015

Thanks to our spotters, any more? Email them in, Rik.

21 thoughts on “Day Twenty Eight – News with a Common Purpose

  1. Rothpol , your first two linkies both lead to the same Scott Hesketh story in the Sunday Star.
    As Mr Hesketh says “the Daily Star Sunday has seen an invoice for £1,116.25 sent to Rotherham Council for a course attended by Dr Sharp in 2005.” .
    It’s hardly hard to see, it’s been sitting here for a long time: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/rotherham_council
    I could be wrong but I think the entire story is simply a trawl though information held on that site.
    Investigative journalism on the cheap?

    Like

  2. It should not come as any surprise that Labour controlled RMBC spent taxpayers money sending people on CP ‘courses’ to enable them to ‘graduate’. More to the point; who agreed to send publicly funded employees on these courses and who signed off the invoices?
    This is the promo guff from CP’s website:
    “Cultural Intelligence
    The ability to cross divides and thrive in multiple cultures.
    Organisations often appoint leaders for their IQ. Then, years later, sack them for their lack of EQ (Emotional Intelligence). Common Purpose argues that in the future they will promote for CQ – Cultural Intelligence. Participants on Common Purpose programmes, as they learn to lead beyond their authority, need to be able to cross boundaries: between east and west, and north and south; between faiths and beliefs; between public, private and voluntary sectors; and between generations.”

    http://www.commonpurpose.org/how-we-do-it/cultural-intelligence

    Thacker did not go for ‘lack of EQ’ She went because she is a failure.
    CP ‘Graduates’ do not recognise the lack of morality or ethics as weaknesses but because these people are morally defective and weak they make ideal fodder for CP brainwashing.

    Like

  3. please may I start again. 🙂
    1. the yournewswire.com piece is the Hesketh piece along with some actual information – I should have read it all the way to the end.
    ( as far as I can see, this is the most recent piece on Sonia Sharp criticism in OZ.
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/education-deputy-secretary-would-be-removed-under-labor-government-20140904-10cmdw.html )
    (some of the invoices etc of the Hesketh piece are here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/common_purpose_courses_expenditu_19
    2. I completely mis-read the Hoddinott tweets by not scrolling to the top of them – when I read Rothpol’s link. … and forgot how wordpress shows links to twitter in comments. (There is a similar problem with Amazon links.
    I didn’t make the same mistake with the Champion tweet – I had sent it to Rothpol.
    Mea culpa.

    Like

  4. I went on some Common Purpose courses via RMBC. One was about about how to complete CAF and APIR (national) assessment forms. (Sonia Sharp was on this one – as was Joyce Thacker – but they didn’t speak) One was about looking at ways to look at time management. That was so boring) The third was about the hidden issue of Dementia among the population.(The best one) Nothing nefarious happened. I wasn’t brainwashed. I didn’t become an enemy of the people. Indeed I found them mostly quite useful. Very work related and simply focused on that. I suppose that makes me Common Purpose – as it does everyone on course – not.

    Seriously though – to examine what the courses detailed (well not detailed) were in the article we need more – well details. If they were as ‘functional’ as mine I have no problem. Of course they could have been ‘the secret network related’ but its not apparent – more details are needed I reckon and then I could be able to help.

    SKT xxxx

    Like

    • Julia Middleton is Common Purpose (and Media Standard Trust founder) A quote from her book ‘Beyond Authority ‘:

      ‘You start with clear and defined objectives … Then you establish what the obstacles are … they are usually people. So you have to establish what motivates them, and then decide if you can win them over by the power of the idea …Sometimes, if it gets messy, you might have to run over them, undermine them, go around them or discredit them. As a last resort, you consider bullying them, or buying them off.’

      Like

      • Hi dpb. Thanks for that but I hope to God (and I mean that in the most reverent way) that you are quoting it out of context. If not then this is frightening, undemocratic, downright corrupt and sinful! No wonder some politicians and other members of the elite consider themselves above accountability! These people are off-the-scale anti-social more than any hoodie hanging round a street corner. The ethics of street gangs brought bang into the corridors of power in a so-called democracy. They should have an asbo slapped on them immediately.

        Like

      • Thank you ‘A regular reader’ for that Daily Mail link. I hadn t seen it before and didn’t realise Middleton was quoting a 3rd party. However, I believe the quote is still relevant in the Common Purpose/Hacked Off/Media Standards Trust/Sovereign Strategy and the Fabian sphere of influence, to name but a few who are looking to undermine the democratic proccesses in our world with their odious brand of cultural marxism

        Like

  5. I think the danger with organisations like CP is not necessarily the detailed content but their arrogance in assuming their approach is somehow special or better. As an avid reader of Private Eye (bad for your health) you can’t help feeling that the UK is in the grip of an elite who are at worst, working in an ethical vacuum which often has no relation to common sense, or at best prone to incompetence as much as the next John or Joan. Witness the failure of so many public servants to hold their hands up and take responsibility when things go wrong but happy to claim the massive salaries, citing them as just reward for carrying that responsibility. If my experience, standing in the by-election as an Indie, taught me anything, it is that ordinary people are just as capable of community leadership as the so-called “professionals”. Don’t let them blind you with science and a load of management-speak waffle. Our institutions are gripped by legalities and processes that are blunting their effectiveness. We have forgotten how to serve people…

    Like

  6. I posted this earlier but it didn’t ‘push through’. It may have done so on another thread by mistake. If it did I’m sorry. I can be dumb at times. However, I will have another go and have updated it slightly. I hope it makes sense. It probably won’t. For that I apologize.

    Thanks RR, Rothpol and all for the links re CP training at RMBC.

    As you and all know I am not a whole hearted believer in the CP conspiracy theory. (Partly but not totally) The diverse holistic social, political and non political make up of those who use CP as a training vehicle is too wide for it to be such an organisation at base level in my humble opinion. Unlike some I do know that all who attend CP training don’t come out brainwashed or as 6th columnists – quite the opposite. Not all CP Graduates – it is but a term – seek to conspire.

    Like with the ‘moon landing’ conspiracy theorist – I always think ‘too many are / were involved in its broader remit for it to be a holistic conspiracy that it just could not hold’. Those who conspire at the top tend not to give too many details of their plans to ‘lesser’s’. But then again I am but a ‘lesser’ – so what do I know?

    I do have grave concerns however how some (but not all) could / can use the CP vehicle at the Higher Senior Management Level to form a ‘closeted circle of friends / contacts’ to misuse the general ethos. That can and does occur – and actually did within the RMBC non elected officials and management and other related private / charitable organisations in the Borough. It’s corrupt people that corrupt – even within the best intended frame work. And I think that that is where the CP model falls apart and was / is misused. (I am being polite)

    CP in my experience operates on 2 levels. The first I have no qualms about – which was / is quite rightly to look at front line training and service needs and improvements that can be made. I think they do quite well on that level. Indeed much of their training is very beneficial. Like I said I have no qualms about this.

    However, it is the second tier of the CP training I have major issues with. Namely the training offered to Middle and Higher management – a level the front line are kept well away from – that seems to install an individual / small grouping dogma that dictates – those ‘below you’ who question are always wrong or trouble makers and should not be listened to – those that question should be simply dismissed (literally in some cases) and made to keep quiet / discredited by any means possible. And those that question are the ‘enemy within’ even if they have valid points or are right. (By the way this goes on within most so called ‘modern’ management training – this issue goes well beyond simply CP )

    My issue with CP lies not within its base training programmes – but how some can misuse the ‘learning’ and how they perceive the message. Most do follow its public remit of how can we improve services for all – but others (and I think Ms Thacker is a prime example) take away the warped self viewed dogma of – how can we use it to control the work force / organisation, bend it to my will and my views, improve and push my standing, promote my ideals, use it to subvert opinion and ‘opposition’, keep the little fish out of the big seas while saying we listen and love you – close down discussion and extend my power. It is within this field of human failing (and in the case of CSE in Rotherham criminal failings) I believe the fault line can be found. And that’s why I don’t blame CP holistically – but individuals and ‘certain groups’. (The same could be said for any organisation – or for that matter ALL political parties – and especially corporate big business )

    Re the quote by DGB on CP:

    ‘You start with clear and defined objectives … Then you establish what the obstacles are … they are usually people. So you have to establish what motivates them, and then decide if you can win them over by the power of the idea …Sometimes, if it gets messy, you might have to run over them, undermine them, go around them or discredit them. As a last resort, you consider bullying them, or buying them off.’

    Picking up on this point – regarding Ms Thacker (her BAILEY cohorts – all still in position) and Mr Kimber – the quote provided by DPG fits well with their styles. The bullying, avoidance of the issues, targeting of dissenters / complainees, use of semantic and vagueness when dealing with complaints / alleged ‘dissent’ from within was ever present. This style of management and control was epidemic – but even worse its still present and widespread. Can it be totally laid at the door of CP. Not really. That style of management has been ‘the way’ for decades – its what bad managers do – and it isn’t a conspiracy – its simply the Corporate way – an inheritance from the Thatcherite legacy of ‘dogma knows best’ and those that question are simply the enemy. (The latter’s Just my opinion)

    It also important to note that this ‘corruption of morals’ did / does not simply exist within RMBC – it existed, and still does, in the various private (big business exists in social care) and charitable organisations (again big money) that take up the contracts within the support network – locally and nationally. Indeed I believe the central element is not simply the alleged CP mantra, but the mantra and total belief among the non elected senior officials, charities and private businesses (that really control the system – Councillors are kept of out of the pool too) that statistics, business and contracts are the prime consideration; and the gaining and maintenance of these contracts – and reliance on ‘warped’ statistical returns – became the sole concern for them all – full stop.

    As for the training on the invoice – I have had a look and this is what I know.

    The ones with no details given could be the ones that need further examination. I may be an old leftie skeptic – but I tend to believe the truth lies not within what information people in power tell you – but what they don’t. I may be wrong – I often am – aren’t we all – but I think more details are needed regarding these particular courses.

    As for the Leadership Programme. http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/courses

    Looking at the alleged course content – I dearly wish managers at all levels had actually followed its guidelines as it would have given staff and users more say and input on services and service level provision. As it seems was CP’s ‘intended’ published aim re the course.

    All I can say however, is very few Middle Manager (there were some good ones – perhaps they listened on the course) and definitely NOT ONE Senior Manager who came back from such training inspired to consult staff and find a new and better way of working centred on staff / user consultation or real effective JOINT networking at field level. Indeed after such training events staff consultation and real networking became less staff focused and the opposite was true. Was this down to CP? I doubt it – in my opinion the blame should be laid at the door of the individuals and self serving little groups who bullied and lied – and their general opinion – at higher levels – that the field of Social Care was simply a business, an opportunity for more contracts, increased empire building and that money was king.

    Regarding the Leadership Programme I think the issue in relation to the Rotherham non elected officials was probably not the training content itself – but what the management did with this training – and what they did in their management meetings / within the ‘networks’ after it.

    Knowing the styles Mr Kimber, Ms Thacker etc and her little BAILEY bullying cohorts – it was probably how to ignore the central message of the training and instigate their own dictates re ‘staff control and stats mean all’ more effectively. I can’t blame Common Purpose for that in this instance – it was just MS Thackers and her team / close colleague’s way. They loved Stats – loved power – loved bullying – hated dissent or alternative views. I can’t really blame that on Common Purpose or any training for that matter – just those who had such blurred visions and self interest at heart.

    Regarding the detailed South Yorkshire Graduate Connect Conference. That was for what CP termed ‘alumni’. Very Senior Managers, Middle Management who were considered by their various employers (it was not just RMBC – far from it) as being ‘on board’, Directors and Chief Execs. (Not councillors as I was led to understand)) I often heard the term ‘alumni’ mentioned by managers – questioned what it meant – but never was given an adequate explanation. One thing I know however, is that in this case ‘alumni’ didn’t relate to genius or talent. The Peter Principle is well alive in every organisation I have worked for. Which in itself is a major issue throughout Britain – although that’s just my personal opinion.

    AlI I know about the ‘Conference’ (it was a big secret) was it aimed to look (we were told) at how this group could expand ‘networks and influence in a holistic inclusive manner for the benefit of practice and users’ and then pass this learning down. However, in reality the little the fish – those who did the front line jobs on a day to day basis – got no where near such events. I.E. not invited or given any real details at all – before or after.

    Also regarding the issue of CP I also find this interesting – see link, extract and my comments.

    http://www.southyorks.police.uk/node/4744

    “COMMON PURPOSE ADVISORY GROUP

    T/ACC ****** presented this paper to seek the Senior Command Team’s view on South Yorkshire Police (at Senior Command Team level) being represented on the Common Purpose Advisory Group for Sheffield City Region. There is no financial cost to the organisation in relation to this decision.

    The following recommendation was put forward:

    1. That SCT consider whether they wish to nominate an SCT member to take a place on the Common Purpose Advisory Group for the Sheffield City Region.
    RESOLVED – Paper was rejected. SCT will not provide a SCT member to sit on the Advisory Group.”

    I wonder why they have changed their minds re this group? What was the reason etc? It seems to opens up more questions than it answers. But that isn’t anything new.

    SKT xxxx

    PS: I still don’ believe totally in a holistic CP conspiracy – a conspiracy by some who used it or within it maybe – but not as a means of mass control where all involved came together to subvert. It’s not what you learn / don’t learn that is the problem. It’s how some misuse that learning or power that is the problem. Then again I could be wrong or simply stupid – the latter I’ve been called many times – even on here – but any suspicions many have re CP could be abated (or not) by CP being more open about what they do.

    Like

  7. I posted this earlier but it didn’t ‘push through’. It may have done so on another thread by mistake. If it did I’m sorry. I can be dumb at times. However, I will have another go and have updated it slightly. I hope it makes sense. It probably won’t.

    Thanks RR, Rothpol and all for the links re CP training at RMBC.

    As for the training on the invoice – I have had a look and this is what I know.

    The ones with no details given could be the ones that need further examination. I may be an old leftie skeptic – but I tend to believe the truth lies not within what information people in power tell you – but what they don’t. I may be wrong – I often am – aren’t we all – but I think more details are needed regarding these particular courses.

    As for the Leadership Programme. http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/courses

    Looking at the alleged course content – I dearly wish managers at all levels had actually followed its guidelines as it would have given staff and users more say and input on services and service level provision. As it seems was CP’s ‘intended’ published aim re the course.

    All I can say however, is very few Middle Manager (there were some good ones – perhaps they listened on the course) and definitely NOT ONE Senior Manager who came back from such training inspired to consult staff and find a new and better way of working centred on staff / user consultation or real effective JOINT networking at field level. Indeed after such training events staff consultation and real networking became less staff focused and the opposite was true. Was this down to CP? I doubt it – in my opinion the blame should be laid at the door of the individuals and self serving little groups who bullied and lied – and their general opinion – at higher levels – that the field of Social Care was simply a business, an opportunity for more contracts, increased empire building and that money was king.

    Regarding the Leadership Programme I think the issue in relation to the Rotherham non elected officials was probably not the training content itself – but what the management did with this training – and what they did in their management meetings / within the ‘networks’ after it.

    Knowing the styles Mr Kimber, Ms Thacker etc and her little BAILEY bullying cohorts – it was probably how to ignore the central message of the training and instigate their own dictates re ‘staff control and stats mean all’ more effectively. I can’t blame Common Purpose for that in this instance – it was just MS Thackers and her team / close colleague’s way. They loved Stats – loved power – loved bullying – hated dissent or alternative views. I can’t really blame that on Common Purpose or any training for that matter – just those who had such blurred visions and self interest at heart.

    Regarding the detailed South Yorkshire Graduate Connect Conference. That was for what CP termed ‘alumni’. Very Senior Managers, Middle Management who were considered by their various employers (it was not just RMBC – far from it) as being ‘on board’, Directors and Chief Execs. (Not councillors as I was led to understand)) I often heard the term ‘alumni’ mentioned by managers – questioned what it meant – but never was given an adequate explanation. One thing I know however, is that in this case ‘alumni’ didn’t relate to genius or talent. The Peter Principle is well alive in every organisation I have worked for. Which in itself is a major issue throughout Britain – although that’s just my personal opinion.

    AlI I know about the ‘Conference’ (it was a big secret) was it aimed to look (we were told) at how this group could expand ‘networks and influence in a holistic inclusive manner for the benefit of practice and users’ and then pass this learning down. However, in reality the little the fish – those who did the front line jobs on a day to day basis – got no where near such events. I.E. not invited or given any real details at all – before or after.

    Also regarding the issue of CP I also find this interesting – see link, extract and my comments.

    http://www.southyorks.police.uk/node/4744

    “COMMON PURPOSE ADVISORY GROUP

    T/ACC ****** presented this paper to seek the Senior Command Team’s view on South Yorkshire Police (at Senior Command Team level) being represented on the Common Purpose Advisory Group for Sheffield City Region. There is no financial cost to the organisation in relation to this decision.

    The following recommendation was put forward:

    1. That SCT consider whether they wish to nominate an SCT member to take a place on the Common Purpose Advisory Group for the Sheffield City Region.
    RESOLVED – Paper was rejected. SCT will not provide a SCT member to sit on the Advisory Group.”

    I wonder why they have changed their minds re this group? What was the reason etc? It seems to opens up more questions than it answers. But that isn’t anything new.

    SKT xxxx

    PS: I still don’ believe totally in a holistic CP conspiracy – a conspiracy by some who used it or within it maybe – but not as a means of mass control where all involved came together to subvert. It’s not what you learn / don’t learn that is the problem. It’s how some misuse that learning or power that is the problem. Then again I could be wrong or simply stupid – the latter I’ve been called many times – even on here – but any suspicions many have re CP could be abated (or not) by CP being more open about what they do.

    Like

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.