Talk:Common Purpose UK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Organizations WikiProject This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low-importance within Organizations.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 March 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Need time to ask others to add their research

Contents

[edit] Controversial Brian Gerrish video

it's about a supposed conspiracy that the Common Purpose group is controlling the UK, it's a must see and a Criticism section should be created in this article --anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.141.183 (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I've seen the video. maybe a criticisms section is needed highlighting some of the criticisms levelled at Common Purpose by various groups/professional bodies/politicians? Witanofnorfolk 12:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
One user removed this link citing it was "legally slanderous." I have seen the video and I'm not inclined to agree with the removal on that ground so I have reinstated it. __meco 19:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added a section caleld criticisms and made a quick note of Brian Gerish. Could somebody expand this with a bit mroe info and relate it to the link to the video? Witanofnorfolk 13:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Also Tim Byles now head of the BSF project and former Norfolk CC has been interested in working with Common purpose's courses as shown at: http://www.eastspace.net/norfolkambition-partnership/documents/NCSP_B_Minutes_05.06.22.doc it might be worth mentionining this since obviously BSF is a massive undertaking and would require a fair bit of staff training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witanofnorfolk (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hope I'm adding this comment correctly as I can't see an "add comment" button! (Please correct if I'm doing this wrong.) I've removed the conspiracy video twice as according to the Wiki defition it is defamatory. "In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation." The video in question contains reference to Common Purpose as a sinister and criminal organisation and claims that Common Purpose is working to destroy the infrastructure of the country. (At one point stating that Common Purpose want to "kill us"! These claims are offensive, inaccurate, false and defamatory. I'm removing it again and suggest this is taken to a jurisdiction by admin if disagreed. - Rangenews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangenews (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point about the video, however there seems to be a fair number of them online now regarding Common Purpose from the quick search I have done on Google. Maybe the user who added the vid could discuss the video's under the criticism section? Witanofnorfolk 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's the video again: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3664960863576873594&hl=en-GB
I'm the one that posted it the first time. 83.250.148.93 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have a mechanism called the Arbitration Committee, however, my experience suggests that it would be premature to request its intervention in this matter yet. I do not accept your premise that this video is legally slanderous. Some people may of course be of that opinion, but as I perceive the matter this is a lawfully presented and argued accusation levelled at common Purpose, and any conclusion about it not being protected by freedom of speech I find far-fetched at this junction. __meco 20:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, what happened to the part I edited? And why isn't the link to the video featured in the article? 83.250.148.93 07:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, it just appeared, thanks Meco. =) 83.250.148.93 07:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: How about a Hide/Show thingy for the CP clients? 83.250.148.93 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Meco, It seems we disagree on the fundamental definition of defamation! I would have thought that if someone accused me of wanting to kill them and then published it on the web, I would be defamed. But obviously you don't agree. Witanofnorfolk's comment is accepted: that the same video is replicated across various sites and can be found via a Google search. But you'll also notice the nature of these sites and surely want Wikipedia to be somewhat more reputable! So I'll leave it to you to actually watch the whole video (as I can't believe you could sit through it all and not consider it defamatory?) and reconsider. If there is still no mutual conclusion then I'll make a formal request for arbitration. Thanks! (I'm leaving the video up for now so others could comment on its acceptability?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangenews (talk • contribs) 09:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Rangenews, Brian Gerrish DOES in fact back up each one of his claims. Why do you care so much? 83.250.148.93 10:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
83, for many reasons, not least of which is that I don't feel Wikipedia should be used as a cheap way to distribute utterly false marginal conspiracy theory rants which defame others. (And is morally and racially offensive. A few links on from where I viewed this video I found a vile anti-semitic post about Common Purpose. While such twisted statements may not be illegal, they should certainly not be countenanced, imho.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangenews (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I found the video on Stormfront, a highly anti-semitic discussion forum. That does not in any way mean that the video is in itself anti-semitic propaganda. Brian Gerrish even compares Common Purpose to the Nazi Party, rather than referring to it as a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy, if that's what you were trying to get at. The Common Purpose UK article, like many other Wikipedia articles about organizations, has every right to have its own Criticism section. If you wish to question the legality about having a section for criticism, then you could just as well question pretty much every Wikipedia article that has a Criticism section. If I know Wikipedia correctly this is accepted procedure. But I might be wrong. Cheers! =) 83.250.148.93 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Rangenews, you write "utterly false marginal conspiracy theory rants which defame others". Please, indulge me, as you seem to be very well connected to CP, can you give some examples where this google video is wrong? Just a handful, please. And by the way: "A few links on from where I viewed this video I found a vile anti-semitic post about Common Purpose." Is the video anti-semitic? If so, then please say so. If not, stop saying this kind of bullshit. Because a few links from this article about Common Purpose I can find anything, which in fact, proves nothing. Ccwelt 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, been away on holiday! I would take the video apart point by point, but exhaustion overtakes me. Every point made in the video can of course be made about any training organisation working with public and private sector leaders. So I was about to make a long post here then stopped... UKIP, CIB, Stormfront, the posters (and makers) of this video condemn its veracity by association. So you're right to some extent, as long as it's properly attributed the viewers ought to be able to make up their own minds! Cheers. - Rangenews

I watched the video on September 29 and then submitted this entry to Talk:Demos (UK think tank). I am quite convinced that this video can and should be cited and referenced in the present article. __meco 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just one more point, shouldn't the video and the indymedia link be moved under external links rather than references? Would correct, but can't seem to find the list of references to edit anywhere? - Rangenews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangenews (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references and links vanished

they are on the edit page, but not onscreen for the main page. any ideas why?? raining girl 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the problem of a missing </ref> tag. __meco 07:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable clients

I have removed the section 'Notable Clients'. Not all of these organizations are not notable, and the fact that two notable organizations have a business relationship is not necessarily notable. This section does not explain why these relationships are notable - The list tells us nothing about the nature of their relationship with Common Purpose -- Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This list corroborates the ubiquitous nature of Common Purpose, and the nature of these relationships is at the minimun defined by Common Purpose's field of activity as described in the article. The list could easily benefit from some pruning, but to remove it altogether is an exaggeration in my opinion. __meco (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)(minor edit: stature -> nature -meco (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign for an Independent Britain (et al) criticism removed

User:Crosbiesmith removed the following text with the edit commentary "not supported by source given":

Similar criticism of the organisation has come from CIB, UKIP, BNP and David Icke.<ref>*[http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/leedsbradford/2007/03/365733.html Indymedia Report "Common Purpose takes over Bradford"]</ref>

I haven't checked to see whether this source is inapplicable to the assertion, but if it is, perhaps it would be sufficient to leave the statement and add a {{fact}} tag requesting a new citation? __meco (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be. Restored - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Statement on national security

On November 15, User:Rangenews added:

On 14 November 2007, the Prime Minister made a statement on national security that measures to oppose extremism would include working closely with the community; including "new leadership training sponsored by Common Purpose" especially for members of the Muslim community.

This was based on http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13757.asp . Unfortunately, the source does not support this. I know it did say this as it was in the google cache. I have a copy. I guess it was a draft. It can also be seen here. However, in Hansard, Common Purpose is not mentioned. [1]. As it stands the article is incorrect and will have to be changed. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Story

Christopher Story's views aren't notable and should be removed from this article. Around this time last year, Christopher Story was running the story that Henry Paulson was arrested in Germany [2].

I doubt that Christopher Story himself is notable, though if someone were to write a well researched article on him, I would be fascinated to read it. I would like know exactly what his professional relationship with Margaret Thatcher was. Based on the incredible claims on his website, I found it hard to believe his advice was solicited by her. However, a search of the Times digital archive does show up a Christopher Story talking to an 'audience of MPS and students' in 1981. - Crosbiesmith 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your doubts are misplaced. Christopher Story FRSA was in fact an adviser to Margaret Thatcher and has worked closely with famous KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, collaborating on the book The Perestroika Deception in 1995. You might disagree with his analysis, but his views should be noted here. Gordon Thomas is a reliable source. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Could some reliable references be dug up to corroborate mr. Story's credibility (and notability, if possible – he might warrant his own Wikipedia article)? I think this would make it easier to accept him as an applicable source for controversial claims. __meco (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] potential internet cafe edits

http://godhelpbritain.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipedia-i-hope-you-are-all-aware-that.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Consideration for deletion

This article needs expanding, especially the (left wing) political aspects and connections. The organization is secretive, and has too many tentacles into local government, and the "public sector". It's goal is "to find future leaders", this alone means it should be exposed to sunlight. Most people have never heard of these people, and yet they suggest a huge number of people are graduates of their program. It has the potential of becoming a left wing form of Freemasonry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common Purpose website

User:Malcolmxl5 - Why did you remove the link to the Common Purpose website? Which blacklist was it on? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar - Why did you remove the link to the Common Purpose website? Which blacklist was it on? Crosbiesmith (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. Wikipedia won't let me save an edit with the text commonpurpose.org as it is on a spam blacklist. It's a bit of a pain. I renamed all commonpurpose.org links as commonpurpose.test, which allowed me to save. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that a request to have these links whitelisted was declined: [3]. This is unsatisfactory. The article survived a vote for deletion. The subject of the article has a web site. The web site needs to be linked to. I have re-submitted the request. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Amusingly, the domain was blacklisted because of spamming by someone at Common Purpose! [4]. Anyway, I'd like to see these links whitelisted. It would be more appropriate to block the Common Purpose domain range responsible for the attack. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks to User:Beetstra - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deborah Jenkins

User:Rangenews - On 16th April I added the statement 'It was founded in 1989 by Julia Middleton, its current CEO, and Deborah Jenkins'. You removed Deborah Jenkins with the comment 'Correction. Julia Middleton was the founder'. In addition to the provided source [5], Deborah Jenkins is described as 'co-founder and European Director of Common Purpose' on the website of her company Kindling http://kindlingltd.com/, and as a co-founder on the website of Durham County Council [6], and on the website of the Mental Health Act Commission [7]. Do you have cause to doubt these sources? I will revert this shortly. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored Deborah Jenkins mention. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Crosbiesmith - Deborah was one of the first members of staff. This could be phrased as co-founder in context... If Deborah Jenkins had a Wiki entry, it may be notable but until then not authoritative enough to be recorded officially in Wiki. Removed. - Rangenews (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced. Who founded Common Purpose is pertinent to an article on Common Purpose. If you don't demonstrate that the sources are wrong, I'm putting it back. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Who is funding Common Pupose?

What hasnt been elaborated is where the money is coming from to finance and expand common Purpose. and considering that Common Pupose has been accused of being a security servce front, who has been the main funder of common Purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.221.76 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There was suspicion that some of the early money was syphoned from the Millennium Dome fund. Common Purpose has grown quickly, and would have required a fair amount of money to get it kick started. People signing up must see a benefit, this is not a training course, more a philosophy. Middleton has connections to John Prescott ex Deputy PM in the government of Tony Blair. On Common Purpose's web site, it states that affordability is not necessarily an obstacle to attendance. Otherwise courses chargeable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Left leaning politically

There seems no reference to it's political leaning, which is very much to the left, socialism / collectivism. Surely this is an important fact, especially while a left of centre government is in power, and this organization has links back to the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Participants OR Trustees?

There is a huge difference...the section should specify which each person is, preferably separate out Trustees from Participants.Paulbrock (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest tag

There is currently a conflict of interest tag on the article, but no discussion. I will remove this if no evidence is provided that a conflict of interest exists. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

whois on 217.150.113.250 shows that that IP is owned by Common Purpose UK, who has recieved several warnings for COI, and whose edits resulted in blacklisting of commonpurpose's website. Here are all the related accounts.[8]
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_2.5#commonpurpose.org__commonpurpose.org.uk
User_talk:Rangenews
User talk:217.150.113.250
Rangenews (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
88.106.207.152 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
217.150.113.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
--Hu12 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The spam is all very well, but that is gone now. What needs to change to get the tag removed? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)