Urgent Information 010110

8/14/2019 Urgent Information 010110

1/22

National Distribution URGENT information 1 January 2010

Ever wondered WHY ? Common Purpose Exposed

An as yet unnamed elite, lawless organisation is actually running the countryby stealth, in effect a silent insurrection from within. The control must be total,absolute, and lead top-down from the centre. What and who cannot becontrolled must be destroyed . This unelected cult cadre bypassesParliament, the Judiciary, local democracy, and all the institutional safeguardsthat were designed to ensure our freedoms, especially free speech.

All that nulabor has done is to create and maintain the illusion of devolution,whilst imposing ever stronger central control. Throughout the country, from1992 onwards, there has been the setting up of community basedconsultation and activity groups, such as community forums, that gave theappearance of meaningful engagement with citizens. What was reallyhappening was that these groups were strictly controlled, placemen wereimposed, local people ousted, and puppets padded out the group. Then falseclaims of representation of the community were made. Any existing,genuinely bottom-up, and self-managing community group that did notaccede to ( forum ) control were destroyed and replaced. In effect, thegovernment was consulting with itself.

The above process was then repeated in all local, area-wide, city andregional control structures. The controlled community groups ( for example,forums ) were grouped into controlled alliances ( for want of a better word ).These alliances were grouped into associations, then assemblies, and so onin an unbroken chain to No10, via quangos, Regional DevelopmentAssociations, Regional Government Offices, etc. Another reason for thecreation of these groups is that they can be controlled in networks, meetingand making decisions outside of the democratic structures ( and illegally in

many cases ), leading beyond their authority, imposing influence, interest andcontrol beyond their legal remit, and thus creating the impression of deliveringon an otherwise undeliverable policy.

Over the years, citizens have become increasingly disengaged, and thevoting figures have plummeted.

There have been attempts to re-engage citizens in politics, for example, theBaroness Kennedy consultation, and the introduction of the doomed

Sustainable Communities Act. Why doomed? Because the same tactics, arestill being employed, by the same people. Lies, deceit, smoke and mirrors,manipulation of meetings, are but a few of the tactics to ensure top-down


2/22

control, whilst falsely claiming representation. The current governmentinitiatives are simply more of the same dressed differently.

The whole social re-engineering project needed vast quantities of money.

Government matched EU funds were used.

The above is now used as a national template for any national or localgovernment consultation.

The corruption is absolute, lead from the top down, imposed through all tiersof social and government control, down to street level. Being rotten to thecore and from the core, everything it touches it taints. Having neither theability nor inclination to correct itself, outside intervention is indicated.

In the UK, democracy is dead. Despite the claims to devolve democracy,empower people, or derogate decision-making, what we have seen is thecreation and maintenance of an illusion of consultation, followed by falseclaims of consensus. In truth, central control is tightened, as so-calledcommunity leaders are politically placed and imposed, and so on upwardsthrough every control tier to nulabor.

Meanwhile, it is daily reported how our leaders lie, cheat, steal, bully andabuse, yet there is a reticence - for fear of retribution - to using the

appropriate description - institutionalised corruption - that has repeatedly,relentlessly, ruthlessly, systematically and cynically destroyed the lives ofanyone arbitrarily deemed to be a potential threat.

It is an expensive business to run an insurrectionist alternative power cult inparallel with what the ordinary decent citizen perceives as democracy.However, any perception of local democracy, people empowerment, ormeaningful engagement in consultation to inform and contribute to thedecision-making processes is a carefully engineered illusion.

It is necessary to create control structures, finance them, then train people tohead these, to pay for fixers, and to employ the myriad of minions in the non-

jobs. The money from this comes from both the current central government,and from the billions of Eurofunds. These created structures are used tofacilitate the falsification of evidence of prior consultation and consensusneeded for eligibility for the funds. To staff these structures, and to ensureplacement of the chosen people in the right places, there needs to be

centrally controlled leadership training establishment, working as a charity.The truth is, the training establishment is not training leaders at all, it is doingthe opposite, training automatons to do the bidding of their masters,


3/22

regardless of morality, ethics or the law.

Why a charity? Because charities do not attract the same level of cynicismand scrutiny as public authorities, they are not subject to freedom ofinformation laws, they are easy and naive prey for the elite, and charities areeasy organisations for strategic positioning to exert influence, interest andcontrol far beyond their legal remit.

In addition, where the chosen leaders are placed in a charity positioned forstrategic control, they form the perfect base for money-laundering. Whereexisting charities can't be taken over, they are destroyed, and new charitiescreated. Where charities prove themselves to be providing a needed service,they are targeted for privatisation, and the tax-liable jobs falsely claimed to beemployment creation. There is no job creation, just transfer.

The secretly chosen recipients of 'training' are to be found in highly lucrativepositions of many of the decision-making quangos with financial controls.They also ensure that the social-re-engineering projects are funded inpreference to any other, whilst refusing any applications not in keeping withthe agenda.

Once the right steps are in place, the project can continue unfettered, havingcontrol of people, publicity, processes, and pecuniary pursuits. Threats aredestroyed. All this being done covertly, with the cadre elite of the cult evendeciding who can have what information.

This statement can be extended to democracy itself. Perhaps it is not only thegovernment that must be replaced, but the style of government, as thecurrent flavour leaves such a bad taste. Our leading politicians, to whom we

are entitled to look for behavioural guidance, have failed to make thedistinction between what is legal and what it right. Finding a loophole to dosomething does not make what is wrong, right. The very act of looking for aloophole is evidence of intent to act amorally. It is no use saying that no ruleshave been broken, and therefore the behaviour is OK. Those not acting in thespirit of the law, or not capable of making the distinction between right andwrong, have no place in our society, and certainly not as our leaders orrepresentatives in any government.

So now we have described what we have today, and how we arrived at thissorry state.


4/22

The next question must be, WHY ? and Where is all this leading us?

As for those who would expose this corruption, any one arbitrarily deemed tobe a potential threat is subjected to a policy of Control or Destroy, andruthlessly, remorselessly and relentlessly abused.

Why is are they seemingly deliberately doing everything it can to ensure thedevelopment of those conditions that give rise to disorder, social unrest, riots,insurrection and even revolution ?

If the people should react as being driven, this gives excuse to impose adictatorship - which is, by and large, what we have had for the past severalyears, with increasing impositions upon the freedoms of citizens.

To date, every law introduced for security reasons has been used against thecitizens, for no other reason than for preservation of power.

This corrupt cult understands the importance of controlling the flow ofinformation and stifling debate. It is pure paranoia and desperation on theirpart of to censor public criticism.

This nulabor cadre has declared war upon it citizens. Government hasbecome the enemy of the state. Last time this happened, heads rolled,

literally.

Sorting expenses is like moving the proverbial deck chairs. Is there anyaspect of government that is not tainted?

Below is an update to recent developments.

Be warned, it is uncompromising, blunt and disturbing.


5/22

If the reports are to be believed, and they must be, this obscenity is being

repeated throughout the country.

Update to Common Purpose Sheffield and Nationally.

Sheffield is chosen because it is the recognised corruption capital of Europe.


6/22

The statutory obligation to declare, child protection issues, no CRB checks,

no risk assessments, bypassing democratic processes, insider dealing, non-

compliance with FoIA, criminal prosecutions. 291109

Distribution: Ministry of Justice, Charity Commission, Department of

Education, Ofsted, CRB, etc. (CRB checks - Reference number 6675 )

For the attention of Christine Gilbert and Robert Lester ofsted

For the attention of Norman Turpin CRB

Tim Loughton, Dawn Primarolo, Baroness Delyth Morgan, Greg Hurst(Times)

One reason why this issue was raised was because of the reaction to a

question raised on 5 November 2008 at the meeting of the Full Council at

Sheffield City Council.

The question was:

7 the third party encourages its members to identify 12-15 year olds for

grooming before placement for so-called training without any evidence ofhaving carried out the statutory criminal safety checks

The reply of council Leader Paul Scriven was:"You have made serious allegations about child abuse

The local newspaper, a corporate sponsor of Common Purpose along withSheffield City Council, published two wildly inaccurate and sensationalarticles about the citizen. The Star, despite a futile attempt at 'beating the rap'with the Press Complaints Commission, apologised for saying that the citizenhad been banned from asking questions, but did not apologise for printing thelie that about the serious allegations of child abuse. This was because TheStar had accurately quoted verbatim the words of Paul Scriven. Despite theincident being witnessed by over 100 people, a formal complaint against PaulScriven was rigged by the council Executive, who are themselves involvedwith Common Purpose, but did not declare their interest.

A year on, the third party, identified as Common Purpose, continues the samepractice. Common Purpose is a registered charity.


7/22

Here is the first example of an association between Common Purpose and

child abuse. Below is a 2009 web-site screen-shot of Common Purpose using

paedophile Jamie Rennie for their publicity purposes. It refers to the Common

Purpose 360 programme, and contains links encouraging networking.

After his widely-reported conviction, the press reported:

A well known Senior Social Worker (who has asked to remain anonymous)

told us: "These claims are of course subjective at best, and if a paedophile

has free and frank access to records of children and can come into contact


8/22

with children unsupervised [which he was able to], one cannot exclude from

the realms of possibility, that the said individual could sexually interfere with

children" "People trusted him [Rennie] due to his position within the charity

[LGBT Youth Scotland]"

This must apply to ALL Common Purpose graduates.

Correction:

Whilst it is not accurate to say that Jamie Rennie was a member of the local

Advisory Panel of Common Purpose, it was correct to say that he was

selected by members of the Common Purpose Advisory Panel for 'training'and for which he was recognised as a Common Purpose 'graduate'. At the

time that Jamie Rennie was carrying out his paedophile activities the

Common Purpose Advisory Board included a senior policeman and a senior

member of the local press.

It is therefore ironic that those same people would have been part of the

system that arrested and reported upon Common Purpose graduate Jamie

Rennie. It is not known whether any evidence exists showing that Common

Purpose Advisory Group Members were aware of what Jamie Rennie was

doing.

Note the date of the above screenshot.

Jamie Rennie was arrested in 2007, yet Common Purpose continued to usehis reference on their web site for their own publicity purposes and was still

there on 30 October2009 !

Clarification:

In that area, and indeed nationally, Common Purpose has been operating its'Your Turn' youth project for several years, including around Yorkshire. It


9/22

would therefore be appropriate for local authorities, the CRB, all government

departments, and Ofsted take joint action to ensure that all Common Purpose

youth activities were required to provide evidence that CRB checks were

carried out and that risk assessments were made. This would apply urgently

and specifically in the Jamie Rennie case, but applies nationally wherever

Common Purpose operate, not only to Your Turn projects, but all. Clearly, it is

the element of close proximity and trust with young people that attracts the

likes of Rennie.

Development:

The recent adverse publicity in the press about ofsted, for example in The

Times, may have been created for reasons other than those publicised.

It is to be expected that Ofsted is being criticised by the LGA, when so many

LGA leaders are associated with Common Purpose throughout the country,

and who in turn have allowed Common Purpose to operate unlawfully in that

their personnel delivering the youth training have not had CRB checks and

the local authorities have not carried out risk assessments.

Perhaps a 'calm measured voice' from Ofsted now, banning Common

Purpose from all further activity so as to provide protection for the children,

will counter the accusation that Ofsted is not 'protecting its own reputation',

but is in fact protecting children.

However, since last November, the council has still refused to provide anyresponse to this issue, other than denials. The third party continues to provide


10/22

its youth 'services' to the local councils throughout South Yorkshire.

Meanwhile, it turns out that several senior council personnel are also

associated with the third party, which meets in the Town Hall, and The Star

offices, supported by the Chief Executive of the Council and The Star. In

effect, there is an elite cabal specialising in leadership that also targets young

people to join their organisation as future leaders.

It was explained that the third party has members within the council, who

decide what courses or events shall be procured ( without any tendering

process ), and from these events target selected children as potential future

leaders and coerce them into attending these residential courses.

Both the local council and the third party refuse to answer queries about this

issue.

Neither Ofsted nor CRB services have identified any exemptions that permit

Common Purpose to operate these courses with young people without its

personnel undergoing the statutory CRB checks, or the host local authorities

carrying out the mandatory risk assessments.

All that has happened since 5 November 2008 is that the citizen has been

lambasted, publicly humiliated, lied to, bullied and harassed.

Those involved with this are also involved with Common Purpose, both within

the council and from outside of the council.

Here is another example of a connection between Common Purpose and

child abuse:

CP trained West Midlands Fire Service Chief resigns after child porn arrest

(09/07/2009) West Midlands

West Midlands Fire Service chief Frank Sheehan resigns after childporn arrest. He took the Common Purpose 20:20 course in 1998. 20:20 is a

five-day residential programme. This high-level programme is held just twice


11/22

a year. The 20:20 week includes days in both London and Brussels visiting

key institutions in the cities and examining how they operate and who holds

power. For those interested in NLP, ( Neurolinguistic programming )

practitioners PPD Learning Ltd boast West Midlands Fire Service as one of

their clients.

Why did LibDem Leader Paul Scriven lie about that citizen as he did, when

falsely accusing that citizen of making allegations of child abuse?

Perhaps this was in his mind:

Former Deputy Mayor Jailed For Grooming TeenA former deputy mayor has been sentenced to eight months in prison

for attempting to 'groom' a 13-year-old girl for sex.

The Lib Dem councillor, who represented Bilton on Harrogate Borough

Council and Bilton and Nidd Gorge on North Yorkshire county Council, was

also automatically disqualified from being a councillor as a result of his

sentence."

Was the above in the mind of Paul Scriven when he falsely accused thatcitizen of making allegations of child abuse?

Paul Scriven then had his political spokesperson, Ian Turngoose, to provide

The Star with a litany of lies about the citizen that The Star published. The

line manager of the reporter that acutely quoted Paul Scriven sent damaging

and false material to the Press Complaints Commission in a doomed effort,

with the Council, to destroy that citizen.

A complaint was raised against Paul Scriven, which was then sabotaged by

executive council officers who were graduates of Common Purpose !

A complaint about the behaviour of the council was made to Standards for

England, who agreed that the council has acted improperly, but refused to

intervene they were published supporters of Common Purpose !

Johnston Press, proprietors of The Star, have continuously failed to prevent

the exposure of their paper to liability, and have also failed to support their


12/22

truthful reporter, Lucy Ashton, when Paul Scriven twice falsely made a liar out

her. Her line manager did not support her either.

Could this be because Johnston Press is a corporate sponsor of Common

Purpose? Are the Johnston Press shareholders aware of the links between

Common Purpose and the child abuse?

During 2008, and through 2009, strenuous efforts have been made to

establish who are the Common Purpose graduates and supporters and

officers within and around Sheffield City Council. These efforts continue to be

unlawfully blocked, accompanied by futile false accusations, obfuscation, a

criminal, malicious adverse publicity campaign personally against that citizen,

and blatant, in-your-face lies. The council is confident that it has CommonPurpose graduates in all the external organisations with purview, on whom

they can rely within their network, to ensure that publicity about their

activities remains contained. ( for example, South Yorkshire Police )

The Common Purpose graduates are trained at the ratepayers

expense, carrying out their meetings and activities using ratepayer-paid time

and resources, whilst the council has admitted that there is no evidence ofany advantage to the ratepayer. This breaches the Local Government Act,

and the council has been advised of this, yet can confidently ignore the law,

knowing that they will never be held to account. The council is also obliged,

as is every organisation throughout the country that employs public servants,

to declare the membership of anyone associated with Common Purpose.

The following is a brief about the need to declare:

The Civil Service provides a definition of a secret society which clearly

includes the modus operandi of Common Purpose. Please find definitions of

a secret society below. These should prove useful in allowing members of the

public to confirm that Common Purpose graduates should declare themselves

to the public. The text also reveals the conflict of interest of Common Purpose

graduates acting as the "eyes and ears of Common Purpose".

This is aside from the fact that Common Purpose is awarded public paid

contracts by a 'nod and a wink' via their graduates within the public sector,


13/22

rather than via open tendering process. In effect, this is illegal insider

trading, which, coupled with the actions of local authorities to flout the

Freedom of Information Act, should be more than sufficient to prompt

immediate and radical action from the Audit Commission if it wasnt already

infected from the top down with Common Purpose !

http://beta.civilservice.gov.uk/about/work/codes/csmc/index.aspx.

Civil Service Management Code 1.1 Recruitment 1.1.6 Departments and

agencies must be satisfied that recruits are able to show that they will be able

to give satisfactory service in the future and that nothing in their more recent

past is likely to bring discredit upon the department or agency or the Civil

Service in general.

Chapter 4 Principles 4.1.3c. civil servants must not misuse their official position or information

acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or

those of others. Conflicts of interest may arise from financial interests and

more broadly from official dealings with, or decisions in respect of, individuals

who share a civil servants private interests (for example freemasonry,

membership of societies, clubs and other organisations, and family). Where a

conflict of interest arises, civil servants must declare their interest to senior

management so that senior management can determine how best toproceed;

Discipline and dismissal 4.5.3 It is for departments and agencies to define

the circumstances in which initiation of disciplinary procedures may be

appropriate. It is not necessary to attempt to define every circumstance.

However departments and agencies rules for staff must make clear the

circumstances in which the application of the disciplinary procedures may be

considered, and these must include: a. breaches of the organisationsstandards of conduct or other forms of misconduct (see paragraph 4.1.4);

and b. any other circumstances in which the behaviour, action or inaction

of individuals significantly disrupts or damages the performance or reputation

of the organisation; as well as other circumstances covered by the statutory

dispute resolution procedures.
http://beta.civilservice.gov.uk/about/work/codes/csmc/index.aspxhttp://beta.civilservice.gov.uk/about/work/codes/csmc/index.aspx


14/22

Example of application of the above code at local authority level:

XXXXXXXXX Constitution Part 5 Codes and Protocols 2. PUBLIC DUTY,

PRIVATE INTEREST, FRAUD AND THEFT (i) General 2.1 An

employees public duty and private interests must not conflict. Employees

must declare any private interests relating to their public duties. 2.3

Employees must declare in writing to their Heads of Service membership of

any organisation not open to the public that requires formal membership and

oaths of allegiance and which has secrecy about rules, membership or

conduct. A definition of what constitutes a secret society as shown in

APPENDIX A.

APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A MEMBERSHIP OF

SECRET SOCIETY

The following is the Councils definition of what constitutes a society with

secret rules (secret society). Any lodge, chapter, society, trust or regular

gathering or meeting, which: (a) is not open to members of the public who

are not members of that lodge, chapter, society or trust; and (b) includes in

the grant of membership an obligation on the part of the member a

requirement to make a commitment (whether by oath or otherwise) of

allegiance to the lodge, chapter, society, gathering or meeting; and (c)

includes, whether initially or subsequently, a commitment (whether by oath or

otherwise) of secrecy about the rules, membership or conduct of the lodge,

chapter, society, trust, gathering or meeting. A lodge, chapter, society, trust,

gathering or meeting as defined above should not be regarded as a secret

society if it forms part of the activity of a generally recognised religion.

____________________

From the above, Common Purpose constitute a secret organisation, for which

declaration is mandatory, with possible disciplinary measures including

dismissal for non-compliance.

But Common Purpose continue to meet, imposing secrecy under Chatham

House rules, whilst local authorities continue to unlawfully refuse to disclosewho these people are.


15/22

Below are given the urgent steps needed to protect our children.

What needs to be done now and with urgency?

1. Common Purpose to be declared a proscribed organisation.

2. A list of ALL Common Purpose graduates, throughout the country, to be

immediately placed in the public domain.

3. Mandatory declarations of interest enforced wherever there are Common

Purpose graduates/associates/members/officers/etc.

4. ALL so-called training at the expense of the public purse to cease

immediately.

5. CRB checks and risk assessments carried on ALL Common Purpose

personnel involved with youth activities, such as leadership training and

projects such as Your Turn.

6. ALL local authorities and institutions to cease complying with Common

Purpose requests and interference that result in the unlawful and criminal

withholding of information about their membership and activities at the public

expense.

7. Government sponsorship to cease immediately, and government Cabinet

involvement to be declared, i.e. within Cabinet Office itself.

8. Charitable Status withdrawn.

Note:

The investigation into the Scottish case began in late 2007. A man who had

served time for sexually abusing a child and was on the sex offenders'

register, worked as an engineer with Crown Paints at premises in Edinburgh.

He had fitted a personal hard drive to one of the computers at his work and


16/22

either forgot to remove it or had not realised that the computer was to be sent

away for repair. A technician discovered an indecent image of a child, and

police were alerted. There was an email link that was sourced at the address

of Rennie. Operation Algebra swung into action.

The following is but one legal rationale showing why it is urgent, imperative

and mandatory for full disclosure:

http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=83274

30 October 2009

Source: The MJ (Local government is rapidly changing - to be effective in this

environment it is essential that you have access to the most up-to-date and

detailed information. The MJ is the magazine that will help you to come up

with practical solutions to everyday issues in this changing landscape.)

Confidentiality or clarity?

Nicholas Dobson

What is more important, transparency of council accounts, or commercial

confidentiality? Nicholas Dobson looks at a High Court case which

considered just that.

If everyone saw the world our way, there wouldnt be many disputes. For, as

the old clich goes, wed all then be singing from the same hymn sheets.

But they dont, and we arent. So life often becomes a fierce competition.

Your rights against mine. Your wish to party late and loud. Mine to have a

quiet nights sleep.

Yours to build a mega home extension. Mine to object bitterly. And in current

point, yours to inspect the Full Monty council accounts. Mine to plead

commercial confidentiality.

"Veolia contended that this information was commercially sensitive. It had
http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=83274http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=83274


17/22

been supplied to the council confidentially, and would be valuable to

commercial competitors..."

So, someone has to decide just where the balance of rights lies. And that

often falls to the courts, as it did on 1 October 2009, when the High Court

decided that the statutory audit provisions enabling public inspection of

accounts and related material trumped any contractual provisions for

commercial confidentiality.

The case had been brought by waste management company, Veolia,

following a decision of Nottinghamshire CC to make available for public

inspection the councils accounts, together with all books, deeds, contracts,

bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them.

A local elector, Mr Shlomo Dowen, applied to inspect and make copies of

certain documents relating to a waste-management contract between the

council and Veolia.

The council informed Veolia that it intended to make certain disputed

documents available for inspection. These included among others

monthly particularised invoices from Veolia to the council, the formulae by

which contract payments were made, and provisions for contract default

deductions.

Veolia contended that this information was commercially sensitive. It had

been supplied to the council confidentially, and would be valuable to

commercial competitors and contract sub-contractors. And, if any of that

information was to enter the public domain, Veolias ability to compete on bids

with other authorities would be damaged and its ability to hold down sub-

contract prices on the contract impaired.

The company, therefore, sought to prevent the council from disclosing the

disputed documents, save in heavily redacted form. So, just what law was

causing all the kerfuffle? Well this is Section 15 of the Audit Commission Act

1998, which at each statutory audit enables any persons interested to

inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds, contracts, bills,

vouchers and receipts relating to them.

It also enables such persons to make copies of all or any part of the accounts

and those other documents. But, while there are confidentiality provisions in


18/22

Section 15(3) and (4), these do not extend to commercial confidentiality. They

merely cover personal information, ie, that which identifies or enables the

identification of a particular individual where the auditor considers that the

information should not be inspected or disclosed.

The confidentiality provisions also cover information concerning an

individuals office or employment and relevant payments or benefits, including

those on severance. Mr Justice Cranston noted that historically, the obligation

to pay local taxation was matched by the right given to ratepayers to an

involvement in the process of ensuring the money was well spent. This was a

mechanism of democratic accountability through involvement in the public

audit process.

Given its history, he therefore thought it entirely unsurprising the law should

permit a local elector, such as Mr Dowen, sight of the disputed documents in

this case. For the historic role of interested persons such as local government

electors in participating in the audit process would be severely diminished

without such disclosure.

But while the judge could well understand the concern about commercial

confidentiality which could adversely affect not only Veolia but also the

council through sub-contractor demands, once they understood Veolias

modelling nevertheless, the plain fact is that there is no duty to keep

commercial confidentiality in Section 15.

For, if the section applies, the council must disclose and... the section trumps

the confidentiality obligations set out in the contract.

In protecting personal information in Section 15(3) as described above,

Parliament had prescribed the extent to which confidential information could

be excluded from disclosure.

According to the judge, while accounts are not defined, the 1998 Act

indicates that they are the record of the councils financial activity over a

period and of the financial position at a particular time.

He considered it plain that each of the disputed documents relate to the

councils accounts as that phrase is to be construed in its statutory context.

Therefore, Mr Dowen was entitled to inspect and copy the documents in

question.


19/22

It will be interesting to see to what extent this judgement dampens the

enthusiasm of external contractors in council business. But if the court ruling

endures, given the volume of lucrative local authority business not to

mention the recession contactors will presumably just have to learn to live

with it.

All recipients, you have had but the briefest of introductions, with but one

example of how it may be applied to your area. The same applies nationally.

Best Regards,

Stygian

What can elected members do now?

In addition to the above, here are some first steps:

- Identify all Common Purpose graduates, officers, supporters, and

ensure that all are entered on a register that is available in the public

domain.

- Refute any claims that activities associated with Common Purpose are

in any way private. Their training, meetings, and activities are all

purchased and resourced at the expense of the ratepayer, so all that

council officers do that is associated with Common Purpose must

therefore be public domain material.

- Obtain the minutes of all meetings attended by Common Purpose

graduates these are NOT private, despite false claims to the contrary.

- Obtain from the local authority a list of all costs associated with the

activities of Common Purpose, in terms of time, fees, donations and

hospitality.


20/22

- For each of the above, obtain the objective evidence demonstrating that

there is an advantage to the ratepayer ( saying people felt, etc is not

evidence ! )

- Determine that no-one involved with procurement, payment,

recommendation or evaluation of any Common Purpose involvedactivities were themselves associated in any way with Common

Purpose

- If any contracts or services involved minors, i.e. the Your Turn project,

ensure that the council had carried out the CRB checks and held such

proofs. ( Duty of Care and Due Diligence )

- For each of the above, obtain a copy of the council minutes of meetings

at which the elected members approved of the policy relating to itsassociation with Common Purpose, and the extent of any delegated

authority given to officers to deliver upon that authority

- For external liaisons, such as regeneration boards, assemblies, funding

organisations, etc, obtain evidence that there was no possibility of

Insider Dealing, not least by identifying Common Purpose graduates in

those organisations.

Ps

Vexatious and irresponsible questions

Post categories: meta-requests, whatdotheyknow

Martin Rosenbaum | 08:17 UK time, Tuesday, 14 July 2009


21/22

I know from personal experience that making freedom of information requests

to public authorities is something they sometimes find irritating - but at what

point does it become vexatious or irresponsible?

This question is raised by some recent rulings on what constitutes legitimate

use of the Freedom of Information Act.

In a decision published last week, the information commissioner determined

that the local government ombudsman was right to dismiss an FOI request as

'vexatious'. This was the 48th request in a series made to the LGO by oneindividual in a six-month period.

The complainant is clearly concerned about the effectiveness of local

authority complaints procedures, having submitted hundreds of FOI

applications on the topic to various authorities. However the commissioner

found his arguments "unconvincing" and "not considered to be properly

anchored in sound evidence", concluding that the "the request could fairly be

considered obsessive and manifestly unreasonable" and was therefore

vexatious.

Under the FOI Act, a request can be refused if it's vexatious, but this has to

be an issue about the request itself, not the person making it. Just because

you are a really annoying person is not sufficient grounds for turning down

your freedom of information applications.

In this case the request, along with many other requests by the same person,

was made through the whatdotheyknow site. This site is certainly regarded as

very vexing by numerous public authority FOI officers, who particularly don't

like the way it automatically publishes all the correspondence in connection

with a request.


22/22

In a different case, the High Court has just ruled that there is nothing

necessarily wrong in making a meta-request - a request about how your other

requests have been handled. The journalist Matt Davis put such a question to

the Home Office, suspecting that he was getting worse treatment than the

general public in the 48 requests he'd made to the Home Office (this was

over a two-year period).

The Home Office argued that such meta-requests "are an arguably

permissible, but irresponsible, use of the Act" which "could be used as a

'backdoor method' of obtaining information which had previously been

withheld." But these arguments were rejected by the judge, who backed the

earlier opinion of the Information Tribunal

that "meta-requests should be dealt with in the same way as any other

requests".

So if your FOI request is turned down as vexatious, is it irresponsible to put in

a meta-request about how it was handled?

Documents

Urgent Information 010110