methoughtfulWhy DO our governments seem hellbent on ignoring our concerns? Today The Slog looks at the alleged influence of Common Purpose, and asks whether there is a place in any free democracy for a secretive organisation with a doctrinaire cultural agenda.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

George Osborne helped truss up and impoverish upwards of two million female State pensioners to save a piffling amount of money that he must have known was a molehill trying to smother Mount Everest. Gordon Brown sold gold at rock bottom when any sector analyst or dealer could’ve told him it was at an historic low, and likely only to rise. Nick Clegg continues to meet and conspire with old cronies in Brussels, yet he cannot possibly be unaware of the anti-democratic, fraudulent, fiscally bullying, vengeful and illegal practices the European Commission gets up to in Greece, Spain, Italy and Hungary.

In the same vein exactly, we find ourselves today with a Prime Minister engaged in trying to sell the British electorate an invitation to vassal State status as “the real Brexit for which The People voted, and which I have now delivered”. Everyone I discuss that with – be they Remainer or Leaver  says the same thing: she must be mad.

But actually, I don’t think she is.

Over four decades, I have met many politicians at various levels in five different EU countries. Almost all of them (I’m talking three exceptions) were mediocre bombasts with little interest in genuinely open government. But what ran through all these nonentities like the letters in a stick of rock was a desire to be popular.

So why do the movers and shakers in this debased craft go out of their way to dismiss the popular will?

Some politicians in the past did so because they didn’t want to pander to bigotry….they thought it was their duty to lead rather than just obey. I admire legislators like that. But in 2018, it applies to Kate Hoey, John Redwood and one or two others who have always been largely denied access to power.

Equally, some senior pols are just selfish pigs at the trough, or psychopaths who saw politics as a means of achieving their mad aspirations: Dorian Greys do exist…..we all remember Tony Blair, the most obvious example in my lifetime.

Others put their Party allegiance before any other consideration because, at some point, they get seduced by the Ministerial limo, the deference, the red carpet and the fawning Whitehall lackeys.

But none of these rationales explain (for example) the construction of a Russian plot behind the Skripals “poisoning” and the disgraceful bombing of Iraq, when it was abundantly clear to Theresa May that the vast majority of the electorate (79% to be precise) did not approve of the action, and fully 67% of them felt the “Novichok” saga to be – at the very least – unproven.

Nor do they explain the current behaviour of the British media. In 2002, 62% of all Brits felt they were getting something close to accurate reportage in our print and broadcast media. Today, the figure languishes at 30%. That is a cataclysmic fall in just sixteen years.

Further, none of it explains why the senior ranks of the Civil Service have done everything in their power, when given the chance, to manipulate any and all statistics suggesting that the wheels are coming off our socio-economic approach. A lot of this is of course down to pressure from every Home Secretary, Chancellor and Health Minister along the way – but nowhere near all of it. The utterly pernicious behaviour of senior Mandarin Olly Robbins throughout the Brexit process cannot easily be explained by self-interest: and May’s insistence on his presence (despite the resignation of two senior Cabinet members as a result of it) is equally concerning.

The Great Data Scandal

I have blogged about this previously in a series of articles which can be found in The Slog archives. These revealed lies about unemployment and inflation in the UK by the use of manipulation and omission in relation to hours worked, false returns from employment agencies, and the content of “cost of living” baskets.

I have in turn posted more than a dozen blogs interrogating the claims of the Whiteminster class that the female SPA reform women “were told in advance” about the changes to their dates of pension access. Quite clearly, they were not….and on at least three occasions, governments moved the goalposts to suit their own agendas.

Now it seems we must have grave doubts about even the accuracy of our stats on the rising population of Britain….both the rate, and its actual size today. This is really quite astonishing stuff.

In the last data batch made available, the Office of National Statistic (ONS) stated that, in 2016, the population of the UK was 65.6 million. In turn, latest net migration statistics show that – in the year ending September 2017 – net migration to the UK was 244,000. This is not especially congruent with the “10,000 a year” promised by Prime Ministerial hopeful David Cameron in 2010, but then I think in this case we can put the achievement failure down to the simple fact that CallMeDave is just an incorrigible fibber.

However, on closer examination we can see that – as with the female SPA “reform” debacle – the political class as a whole is in the Dock here. In 1998, the new Blair administration dumped all exit checks on non-EU migrants. So until the checks were reintroduced in 2015, it wasn’t possible to know who how many migrants simply stayed beyond their allotted visa stay.

Is this just the construction of angels on a pinhead? Far from it: a decade later in 2008, we were told by government that the population of the UK was about 61 million. But large manufacturers measuring purchase rates and retailers selling food said this was bunk: they insisted that their stats suggested a UK population somewhere between 77 and 80 million.

Last year, David Wood – a former Sir Humphrey in charge of Immigration Enforcement – asserted that the Home Office knew that every year as many as 150,000-250,000 foreign nationals had been simply defying their visas and disappearing into the population. When consulted, Home Secretary Theresa May’s former speechwriter Alisdair Palmer fully backed the claim.

This is not only perhaps the biggest macro deception of the 21st century, it is also an obvious conspiracy to cover up the real level of mass immigration into Britain. While potentially of great advantage to Labour (most recent immigrants vote for them) it is a serious headache for the Tories, whose popularity would plummet if their more loyal supporters knew that they too had connived in a rise in the UK population to unmanageable levels.

Looking specifically at Theresa May, an obvious question arises: whoTF is she working for? Because it sure as Hell isn’t the United Kingdom. Nobody covering up such a mass of illegal inhabitants while at the same time bending the knee to Brussels could sensibly suggest such a thing.

She – and myriad others like her across the political spectrum – seem to be obeying a common aim that is, for the average Briton, at best dysfunctional and at worst disastrous on almost every level.

The strange case of Common Purpose

This is the name of an influential and hugely secretive organisation I have been trying to get some kind of a steer on since around 2006.

It is nearly thirty years since Common Purpose was founded by Julia Middleton. Ms Middleton is very keen on diversity. “A country cannot be too diverse,” she once told a gathering of her followers.

But it seems that diversity does not mix well with being honest and open: it operates all its meetings and seminars under the ‘Charter House Rule’. At a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to the meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed to reveal who made any comment. This is of course a major infringement of every citizen’s right to report what he or she has seen or heard. It is also an invitation to break the law if, for example, a member makes murderous threats against, say, a senior Cabinet member: failure to report that to the police makes everyone who hears it an accessory.

Common Purpose operates, if you will, like a sort of private sector Official Secrets Act. Think Freemasonry, or perhaps The Moonies. There is a very real (perhaps unconscious) belief behind its MO that suggests “we are more important than any established legal code”.

The organisation claims that it trains leaders. And certainly, a lot of CP alumni are (by its own admission) now in senior roles in public life: as long ago as January 2010, according to a video prepared by Common Purpose, 12,000 participants were involved in Common Purpose programmes. CP operates from more than fifty centres in the UK.

Today, CP’s own estimate is that there are 80,000 leaders around the world who have attended Common Purpose seminars. 

There is just one problem: we don’t know who the Hell they are, and CP is unhappy about the idea of us knowing.

One thing, however, is very clear….and something to which Common Purpose would readily own up: it is very pro-EU, and campaigns actively to promote the ‘united bloc’ mentality that drives globalist mercantile claptrap.

Another obvious fact is that CP alumni cross political Party and national boundaries. In the UK for example, graduates of Common Purpose are as likely to be found among soft-Brexit Tories as well as the soft-Blairite end of Labour.

Specifically, this means that it is very likely indeed that Common Purpose is active in the continuing campaign to derail Sovereign Brexit.

So here we have a tightly-knit yet elusive community that believes in infinite diversity and SuperState governance. And also here, we have a set of behaviours among globalist multinationals, senior civil servants, the police, the media and politicians of all Parties that seem to pursue uncannily similar aims. It is, indeed, a commonality of purpose.

You don’t have to take my word for it; simply go to the CP website and read the blurb about becoming One Of Them, which offers [my italics) an

opportunity to change the world – too many people are employed by organizations where work is a chore and their day is uninspiring. What we do has real-world impact and knowing this makes a difference to our staff.”

Tens of thousands of alumni in senior jobs all over the country, plus 18,000 more right now on training courses to produce more diversity fanatics. And 95% of the time, we have no way of identifying them…..unless they volunteer the information. Yet just that small peek at the influence has allowed investigators to assert with confidence that CP has members in the NHS, the BBC, the police, the legal profession, the church, many of Britain’s 7,000 NGOs, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries, and Parliament.

A few, I can name. Media ghoul Robert Peston is a keen member. Senior police officer Cressida Dick is Common Purpose – she ordered a shoot-to-kill policy without recourse to Parliament, and is a vociferous supporter of helping those who “have suffered from Islamophobia”. The Law Society’s Chief Executive Officer Janet Paraskeva is Common Purpose trained. Former deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was an enthusiastic supporter while in power, donating government monies to CP projects via his Office, which also contained Common Purpose staff.

Common Purpose (Ltd by guarantee, No. 2832875) is registered as charity No. 1023384, and describes itself as being “involved in Adult education”. Its sole aims is to attract people attracted to power….and then help them get into power. Why is it therefore able to hide behind the secrecy of a charitable institution…..as so many Stop Brexit outfits do?

I cannot prove that CP is involved in “indoctrination”, but by its own admission it is a powerful, unelected force that is doctrinaire – and that’s the disturbing thing about it. In a democracy, such groups should stand for election, or be subject to the rules of lobbying. But Common Purpose doesn’t lobby government: it aims to infiltrate the Establishment in all its forms.

I hope by now that those who come to The Slog regularly realise that this blog is not out there on a third ring of Saturn: the Secret Society feel to Common Purpose concerns me, but its very cards-close-to-chest élitism means that no firm accusations can be made about its influence without solid evidence. Some like Brian Gerrish make wild claims which, in my experience, don’t always check out.

It seems to me that the evidence we need is very simple: full disclosure of membership. 

This can’t be achieved via a Freedom of Information (FOI) inquiry, because physically Common Purpose is not a government organisation, and the more cynical use of data protection makes a charity hard to investigate. Equally, it seems doubtful that we could find out more via the Terrorism Act. However, as CP openly supports the suppression of democratic decisions on sovereignty – and indeed aims to transfer that sovereignty to Brussels against the wishes of the majority – it seems very clear to me that, by any definition of the word, it is a subversive organisation of great power in the land. And this gets us into Defence of the Realm.

Sweeping “Emergency Powers” still exist in Britain today. Typically, there doesn’t have to be an emergency as such, like social breakdown on a wide scale or war. Under the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004, a UK government can do whatever it thinks fit to pose threats ‘to the the running of parliaments in Westminster and Edinburgh and assemblies in Belfast and Cardiff’ at any time.

The question remains – as the driver of this would be the Home Office – whether Common Purpose cells already in place there would oppose it. But specifically, I think we should, as protectors of free thought and democracy, be entitled to know the human element in what could well be a malign secret force at work in our democracy.

Specifically, we should know who the members and former trainees of Common Purpose are

  • In the Cabinet
  • In both Houses of Parliament
  • In our police forces, especially the senior ranks
  • In the media
  • In the Civil Service at both Whitehall and local levels
  • At the Home and Foreign Offices
  • In the diplomatic service
  • In the armed forces
  • In the security services.

I am opposed to any organisation – elected or otherwise – whose aim is to create permanent, doctrinaire cultural change. Down that road lies Big Brother, the USSR….and the European Union.

Is there a groundswell of support out there who would support my contention?