Dear Dame
Two cults supposedly infest the upper echelons of the Met... Freemasons and Common Purpose.
You can read a lot about Common Purpose HERE.
Some of the stuff is sensationalist but,leaving that aside, there are very worrying aspects to CP's infiltration into the Met and branches of the Civil Service.
And no, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to question CP and its motivations.
Common Purpose Advocate: Cressida Dick
The previous and current commissioners were/are leading lights within CP.
As Chief Constable of Surrey Mark Rowley was a leading CP member. There was considerable anger when SCC funded CP training courses. The council officer who approved the funding was a graduate of CP.
CP claims that its sole purpose is to identify and train leaders. All very laudable EXCEPT that clique of leaders tends to favour other CP graduates.
More worrying is that these courses take place under Chatham House Rules.... no one is supposed to disclose what actually goes on at training meetings.
But, Dame, the nub of the matter is this. CP believes that leaders can be 'trained up': we all know that to be arrant nonsense. Leaders are born not made.
Pretending you can construct leaders may be what is causing deficiencies in the Met
With regards
Interested Party
‘Common Purpose is a British-founded charity that runs leadership-development programmes around the world.’ Dull stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Purpose_UK
ReplyDeleteThe Freemasons are a SECRET SOCIETY. What does the Dame know about their infiltration in the police - very interesting stuff - please tell all …
Historically, freemasonry and the police have been interconnected. You'll need to do your own research. Common Purpose, as the name implies, has a purpose and many would say that purpose is political.
DeleteRather than a cult they supply training courses.
DeleteHave you seen the course content or attended a course. If you have you should identify yourself and tell us what went on.
DeleteYes, real information rather than the made-up should be the starting point of any blog.
DeleteNothing has been made up; a silly remark. We are entitled to know and understand whether CP encourages a network of those sharing 'common ideals' and whether that network promotes to senior positions those who have taken part in courses. It really is very simple and surprising you are flailing around!
DeleteDame, In that case, it should be easy for you to provide some real information to back up your ridiculous assertions.
DeletePlease calm down! The only question raised is whether there is a sort of alumni CP organisation that favours CP people above non CP people. Even you should be able to grasp that!
DeleteDame, You have posted a conspiracy theory about cults at the top of the Met with no evidence. You need to take a long hard look at yourself and reflect this is misinformation.
DeleteThe Dame has taken a long, hard look at herself and is amazed at how sublime she looks at 90. Now 22:19...I will repeat as you seem not the sharpest in the toolbox. There have been three senior Met leaders who have/or are, members of CP. CP's influence is deeply entrenched within the public sector and we are
Deleteentitled to understand exactly what is taught in the 'leadership modules'. Now that must be quite simple for you to grasp?
Under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to a meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed to reveal who made any particular comment. It is designed to increase openness of discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_rule
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Chatham House that may be the case.
DeleteChatham House is hardly Bilderberg!
There is a distinct difference when Common Purpose deliberately focuses on influential branches of government. It's political agenda: that should concern us all.
Oh no! Bilderberg getting a mention.
Delete18:59 is correct. The representation of Chatham House Rules in the blog is the opposite of the truth. People are allowed to disclose anything they like (just not other people’s names).
DeleteChatham House and CP are very different!
DeleteDame your blog reads: “More worrying is that these courses take place under Chatham House Rules.... no one is supposed to disclose what actually goes on at training meetings.”
DeleteThis is a total misrepresentation of Chatham House Rules and it remains uncorrected even though it has been brought to your attention twice.
This is a great big leap into conspiracy theory territory for FTHN.
ReplyDeleteOnly in your head. Common Purpose has been written about in most of the MSM
DeleteOh dear! 19:48 just mentioned the ‘MSM’
DeleteYes, it's common parlance
DeleteLoud alarm bells should be ringing in the Dame’s head on reading this rubbish:
ReplyDeleteTwo cults supposedly infest ….You can read a lot … [in out-of-date link to wikileaks (inc John Prescott - remember him!) … Some of the stuff is sensationalist but,leaving that aside, there are very worrying aspects ,,,, And no, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to question …All very laudable EXCEPT that clique …
But the Dame publishes. I am worried for her.
Yes, the Dame publishes and quite rightly too. Common Purpose has been under the spotlight for many years. Those who pass through its hands form a a self-serving group thus it is fair to ponder whether ex CP graduates form unacceptably secretive networks.
DeleteDame, You have fallen down a rabbit hole here.
DeleteIf she has let's see what she finds at the bottom
DeleteHere is People’s Managment magazine advocating why every employee, not just those at the helm, should have leadership skills https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1847160/why-every-employee-not-just-helm-leadership-skills
ReplyDeleteThe teaching of leadership skills are.normal / mainstream stuff.
You have not taken in what is being suggested. Are those with leadership potential being groomed or those who just happen to be accepting of CP doctrine.
DeleteI have seen no evidence of ‘grooming’, ‘brainwashing’ or ‘accepting of doctrine’. However, the teaching of (dull) ‘leadership skills’ is widespread.
DeleteSo, you have been on a course
Delete22:11 Great you have been on a course. Please inform us of your real information. Real information should be the starting point of any blog, don’t you agree?
Delete22:11 the question is whether being a member of CP facilitates promotion/influence. Can you not grasp that? If not, perhaps the Dame is just too highbrow for you! Just pulling your leg
DeleteThere was no ‘grooming’ to accept ‘doctrine’ on any of the leadership courses I’ve been on.
Delete19:43 your logic is flawed. The attendees (adults) at the leadership skills course with me would never except being groomed because they viewed themselves as potential leaders.
Delete09:07 it is good to know you saw yourself as a potential leader. I think you might mean 'accept' rather than 'except'. Are you sure you are telling us the truth?
Delete09:07 here. 1) I'm willing to admit I making spelling mistakes. 2) I'm telling the truth. I've been on leadership courses.
DeleteAdult attendees at a LEADERSHIP skills course would not except being GROOMED. They view themselves as potential leaders.
This conspiricy theory posted by the Dame makes no sence.
I would be curious to know who you attempt to 'lead'
DeleteThis is the third FTHN article attacking the leadership of the Met Police this week.
ReplyDeleteYes...and there may be more. The Dame has been clear that Rowley needs to be replaced by someone of Stephen Watson's calibre. Interestingly, when Watson applied for the job at GMC he was expected to produce a 15-page business plan: he gave the committee just one page of commitments. GMC is now out of Special Measures. The Met is in Special Measures...get it? Watson did not need CP to train him!
DeleteSome Dear Readers must concentrate! The point is to examine the possibility CP encourages networks and that those networks allow the promotion of certain political beliefs and a certain type of officer: no more/no less. FTHN is there to raise such issues of conflict. We are entitled to know which senior Met officers have had CP training and why Dick refuses to admit involvement.
ReplyDeleteCressida Dick retired in 2022.
DeleteShe did not retire: she was pushed out and what does that have to do with her involvement with CP?
DeleteYou could be referring to any one of the many Clubs in London (Reform, Atheneum, Garrick, Liberal etc).
Delete20:45 Sounds to me like a conspiracy theory.
DeleteDame, You ask the question: ‘why Dick refuses to admit involvement.’ I give a full answer to this question: ‘Dick retired in 2022’ - she is not going to respond to you she’s retired.
DeleteYou are still going …
Oh dear! When she was asked,pre-retirement, she refused to confirm or deny. Why would that be if CP has nothing to hide?
DeleteNo, an attempt to discern the level of influence enjoyed by Common Purpose not just in the Met but within the public sector
Delete21:39 what have London clubs to do with it
DeleteA person who goes on a ‘Common Purpose’ training course has not joined any organisation or given any allegiance or joined any organisation (openly or in secret). While Masonic membership is secret.
ReplyDeleteIf Masonic membership to be disclosed by law then we would find who in the leadership of the London Met are Masons (and not).
Read what the Dame has written in the comments. Senior members of the Met are heavily involved
Deletewith Common Purpose. We are entitled to know whether recruitment to senior positions is influenced by membership of CP. It really is terribly simple!
We should certainly insist that at a certain level membership of the freemasons is declared: amazing that this is not the case
Delete22:28 No one has JOINED Common Purpose.
DeleteIt is not The Reform club, Reform UK party or Rugby Football Union. They are membership organisations.
Common Purpose put on training courses!
No, it recruits advisers such as Dick
DeleteFTHN has entered the Tin Foil Hat zone
ReplyDelete22:26 it is rare for the Dame to throw comments into her Art Deco dustbin but if you become more boring that is what might happen: you have been warned. She leaves you with this. One leader of the Met was kicked out for incompetence and the next seems to be heading for the door. Says all we need to know about the quality of Common Purpose leadership courses!
DeleteDear Dame,
Delete* It is fine to comment/debate on poor leadership.
* It is not fine to peddle conspiratory theory.
Oh, don't write such rubbish. It is perfectly fine to pose the question as to whether Common Purpose has too much influence within the public sector. It is equally to posit a view that its leadership courses are ineffectual.
DeleteCommon Purpose are a cancer in our body politic, they "train" only those selected for already having a leftist mindset and who are prepared to fully sign up to Klaus Schwab's evil WEF agenda. And yes I do know these things for a fact from personal experience.
ReplyDelete100% correct. That is why private companies run by entrepreneurs would never waste money on these courses. The public sector is a Left wing wasteland and they love the idea of being able to control those under them.
DeleteNow if you are really looking for a secret ( or at least private members) club which appears to have a great deal if local influence you need look no further than The Chelsea Arts Club. How many RBKC councillors and former councillors are members ? Is it true that the Dame herself have a discreet private entrance to facilitate 'liaisons dangerous' with the dashing, former Councillor Ian Henderson ?
ReplyDelete