Even where the paedophiles were not directly linked to Common Purpose, it can be seen that these deviants may be linked via their associated organisation. This information is in the public domain.

The reader is free to explore the links, and form an independent opinion.

The question therefore must be, and it has been asked before:

Is a part of what Common Purpose is, among its other illegal activities, a conduit and vehicles for a national ( if not international ) paedophile network?

One incident could be said to be isolated, two incidents coincidence, three very bad luck. But no more, the multiple links are undeniable.

Judge for yourself.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/regional/teacher_jailed_over_sex_attacks_1_3385313

This happened in HULL

Note the Hull links with Common Purpose:

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/david-burnby/7/1a/242

http://holliedemandsjustice-robertgreensblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/more-censorship.html

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhullcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk%2Ffile%2F647243&rct=j&q=%22Hull%20Council%22%2B%22Common%20Purpose%22&ei=h6jXTdXLDcuXhQfI7sXGBg&usg=AFQjCNEb4v_WPPcIiaKn31Kk1ljomtyp9g&cad=rja

What about the school where the paedophile worked?

http://www.contentenique.com/anthony-dockerty-a-paedophile-maths-teacher.html

http://www.cpexposed.com/graduates/graduate_results.php

This shows that at least four members of Winifred Holtby school, where the paedophile worked, were Common Purpose graduates. How many more are there? What about those associated with Common Purpose as supporters or sponsors?

Also, what does this say about all those other members of Common Purpose in Hull, such as the local council, the police, the education department, college, voluntary services, etc? These are exactly the networking links that paedophile can exploit.

Let us not forget this:

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Court-hears-66-000-indecent-images-stored-police-chief-s/article-246346-detail/article.html

This concerns Alec Alexander, of Humberside Police, which also has Common Purpose links, and has spent nearly £40,000 in one year alone on Common Purpose.

Note how CP are targeting Year 9 children.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

— On Mon, 11/10/10, Cowen Debbie (CEX) <Debbie.Cowen@sheffield.gov.uk> wrote:

From: Cowen Debbie (CEX) <Debbie.Cowen@sheffield.gov.uk>
Subject: FW: Common Purpose – Your Turn – Year 9 course – 12 Oct Postponed
To: “Councillors” <Councillors@sheffield.gov.uk>
Date: Monday, 11 October, 2010, 11:10

Sent on behalf of Shamshad Hussain,

could you please reply to Shamshad

Thank you

Dear Councillors

I apologise for the late notification of the postponement of the Common Purpose Your Turn programme, in which some of you agreed to participate within a ‘Cafe Conversation’ exercise with Year 9 students.

This has been due to schools needing more time to plan and prepare, following the big summer break and a new intake of Year 9 students to which this course is aimed at, some of the schools although very keen to take part said they would find it easier with dates being later in the term year.

The new dates of the programme are now scheduled for 19th, 20th and 25th January 2011 with young people coming from Hinde House, Parkwood Academy, Ecclesfield, Meadowhead, City School and Bradfield.

Therefore Common Purpose are inviting four councillors to assist with the Cafe Conversation exercise as part of the programme.  Obviously this should include councillors from all political parties.

Please can you let me know if you wish to participate.  I understand Cllr Ross has agreed to participate in the January course and has confirmed this directly with Common Purpose.

We therefore require three councillors to come forward at this stage.  I will be in touch with further information nearer the time.

Best wishes

Shamshad Hussain
Policy Officer – Governance & Involvement

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

http://www.yohrspace.org.uk/content/get-connected-network#ShamshadHussain

Shamshad Hussain, Principal Policy Officer – Equality, Sheffield City Council

With 20 years of experience working within the voluntary sector across a range of fields, Shamshad Hussain’s roles have spanned the fields of policy, research, development support, capacity building and include management roles. In particular she has developed a track record in the field of domestic abuse, gender equality and more broadly race equality.

Shamshad has worked locally, regionally and nationally. A woman who doesn’t give up easily, she has spearheaded a number of campaigns, which have been successful in changing policy for minority women experiencing domestic abuse. She is a driven and resilient character. Her interests in particular are in social justice and equality.

Her current post is at Sheffield City Council as Principal Policy Officer – Equality. Here she has successfully led a number of initiatives for Sheffield’s BME /VCS sector before moving into the policy arena. Shamshad believes we can determine the rules of the game ourselves as black people and leaders.

The fight for equality and justice for all, is a long way from being won and we have to create the passion in our youth to strive for better and take the baton from our hands!

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

On the 9th of March, 1998 :

Shamshad Hussain, of the Keighley Domestic Violence Forum, who has visited Zoora Shah several times in Holloway Jail, said:

‘Zoora is not a cold-blooded killer, she killed out of desperation. She wanted to live a life free of abuse, she wanted to live happily with her children. Mohammed Azam had complete control over her as an individual. The abuse had taken over her life. She wanted to protect her children from the abuse. She killed a man and that was wrong, but what’s the real crime?’

Explaining why Zoora’s version of events was only now becoming known, Miss Hussain added…

‘Asian women are silenced by the community. They are allowed to speak out about initiatives they want to see in community centres such as cookery projects and sewing classes, but they can’t speak out about abuse in their own homes and their personal needs. Organisations therefore cannot address the needs of women experiencing abuse because of pressure from community leaders. Workers like myself get persecuted as well’…

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

What follows, and the attachments, are all public domain documents. They may be freely used, published in whole or in parts, or distributed as you wish.

There have been increasing calls for Sheffield City Council to look into aspects of racism within the area. Racism has been alleged among elected members, senior officers, the Education Department, and in its housing management agent, Sheffield Homes.

Sonia Sharp is a ‘graduate’ of Common Purpose, and has been since 2003.

Does Common Purpose recruit, or create, people like this?

How is it possible that CP graduates can have repeated career failures and apparent personality inversions yet continue to be lucratively-rewarded, gifted, influential and profitable agents for Common Purpose without fear of exposure or prosecution for fraudulent practices?

In the case highlighted here, is this the right message that we want Common Purpose to be sending our children when they take our children on their ‘Your Turn’ events? ( See also the documents referring to Matthew Byrne and Jamie Rennie )

= = = = = = = = =

After a eight day Employment Tribunal in January 2002 Birmingham City Council and Dr. Sonia Sharp were found guilty of the unlawful act of discriminating against the applicant by way of victimisation contrary to Section 2 Race Relations Act 1976 and the Council had to pay damages of £5000 plus £752 interest.

= = = = = = = = = =

Here is what the victim reported: http://liskcarew.homestead.com/Home.html

THE BIRMINGHAM LABOUR PARTY

AND

UNISON

by Ronald Andrew Lisk-Carew

Friday, 04 June 2004

LABOUR IS NOT WORKING IN BIRMINGHAM OR FOR BIRMINGHAM

“A change of administration is essential in Birmingham especially after years of mismanagement, corruption and extensive racism” says Ronald Lisk-Carew a former Labour Party Constituency Chairman, Membership Secretary and District Treasurer in Birmingham.

In 2002, even with the collusion of the Trade Union UNISON, Birmingham City Council and Deputy Director, Dr Sonia Sharp were found guilty of Racial Discrimination by way of victimisation at work against Mr Lisk-Carew in his capacity as Senior Education Social Worker with the council.

UNISON shamefully refused Mr Lisk-Carew legal representation at the Employment Tribunal on the grounds that he could not win at the Tribunal.  Mr Lisk-Carew represented himself and won compensation.

= = = = = = =

Here is an extract from the Judgement of the Employment Tribunal:

“This applicant does not accept, save in the majority finding in respect of the allegation, against John Smail, that the applicant has used allegations of racism as a weapon or has used the allegations made in bad faith with a view to securing a reward unjustly from the tribunal.

61  Accordingly, the tribunal uphold the applicant’s complaint that the first respondents have discriminated against him by way of victimisation.

62  The appellant has chosen to name Dr Sonia Sharp, the dismissing officer, and the tribunal is accordingly constrained to find that Dr Sonia Sharpe has discriminated against the applicant by way of victimisation although she was acting at all times in the course of her employment.

63  Professor Brighouse played no part in the dismissal and the complaint against him is dismissed.

64  Mr John Smail presented the case for dismissal, but did not dismiss. The claim against him is dismissed.

Signed

Chairman

DECISION ENTERED IN REGISTRAR AND COPIES SENT TO PARTIES ON

31 January 2002”

= = = = = = = = =

Here is the actual Decision of the Tribunal:

In Case No 5202907 / 2000 it was stated:

“… Dr Sonia Sharp ( then the third respondent ) has discriminated against the applicant by way of victimisation contrary to Section 2 Race Relations Act 1976. ”

The information came from Tribunals Service i.e.:-

Re: R.Lisk-Carew  V  Birmingham City Council.

= = = = = =

Normally, the above would mean the end of a career. However, if there was an organization that would ensure continuous and lucrative employment……..

……. but, as always with a Faustian Pact, there would be a heavy price to pay.

Is Common Purpose playing ‘musical chairs’ with its influence over the appointment of public servant executives and society’s leaders?

= = = = = =

It is interesting to note that Birmingham Council have stated what they have spent on Common Purpose training going back to 2003. However, although Common Purpose say they have been in Birmingham since 1990, Birmingham council claims not to have the invoices on Common Purpose training spending during the tenure of Sonia Sharp.

“2008–9: £6139.38

2007-8: £4964.38

2006-7: £13101.25

2005-6: £3348.75

2004-5: £12901.50

2003-4: No Record of payments made.

2002-3: No Record of payments made.”

Note the year after Lin Homer became Chief Executive, 2004, the massive rise in Common Purpose spending.

= = = = = =

Here are some details of a racism and bullying case in Sheffield

http://www.uktabloid.co.uk/Archive%2016.html

Revealed: Just four complaints as head quit after assembly row

Complaints from just four parents over plans to scrap weekly assemblies for Muslim pupils led to a year-long row at a Sheffield primary school, The Star can reveal.

The dispute contributed to headteacher Julia Robinson initially taking sick leave from her post at Meersbrook Bank Primary and this term resigning altogether for personal reasons. Parents, staff and governors are still seeking a solution to the issue and are meeting to find a way forward this week.

The assemblies in question were attended by around 30 Muslim pupils once a week at Meersbrook and covered topics arising from Muslim faith and culture.

The gatherings were open to other youngsters too, with all-school assemblies held on four other days, and the practice had been in place for at least 10 years. But on taking up her post Mrs Robinson looked for a way to stop separate meetings.

Sonia Sharp, the city’s executive director of children’s services, said: “Julia wanted all of the children all of the time to feel they were part of Meersbrook Bank.

“It wasn’t that she felt the separate meetings were a bad thing – but she wanted more community spirit and felt that the work going on in the gatherings could be brought into a wider arena.”

Education chiefs accept the row led to a serious breakdown of relationships in the school, but say they are confident that its close-knit nature, history and heritage will see it through troubled times.

Ms Sharp said: “The move to look at the gatherings was incredibly well-intentioned by the head. She worked with parents to look at different ways forward but there was a difference of opinion and in the process relationships broke down. Mrs Robinson’s resignation was accepted reluctantly by the governors for personal reasons. It was not connected with the assemblies issue. ( Do you believe this statement?- Ed. )

“Now we are working with the lead headteacher and governors to find a way forward in the pupils’ best interests.”

In a statement Mrs Robinson said: “I understand the concerns of people on all sides of the debate around faith assemblies in schools and hope that this debate can be positive and constructive.

“My sincere wish is that children are given every opportunity to continue learning in an inclusive and welcoming environment.”

Mrs Robinson’s replacement, Pamela Smith, said the school now holds a “daily act of worship in keeping with legal requirements. “The school has done a lot of hard work to develop community relations.”

Council leader Paul Scriven added: “The school acted with the best interests of all its pupils in mind but it is clear that this has caused misunderstanding and anxiety for some parents. The school is working closely with parents to decide what to do next and continue to foster strong relationships with all its parents.”

But a former parent-governor, who asked not be named as he still has children at the school, said the local authority had completely mismanaged the situation.

He said: “Mrs Robinson sought advice from the local authority on how best to bring in the changes. She was advised to proceed with her plans for a collective act of worship.

“An RE advisor told us only in a small number of faith-based schools did such assemblies take place, and they were not common in Sheffield.

“Mrs Robinson consulted widely and had the support of most of the governing body. But opposition did come from one group of parents. They were a minority but it was a difficult issue to deal with as people were frightened to be branded racist.

“There is no one less racist than Julia, but she was branded as such and she received no support from the council.”

The governor said he had resigned his position in frustration. He added: “The opposition was initially small and it did have a legitimate view and was a significant voice. I am not sure to what extent it adequately represented the views of all the Muslim parents.

“It proved to be disruptive and we were told that if the head did return, the Muslim children would not respect her authority.” News Source

Read the original story on the assembly dispute and the debate it sparked among readers

= = = = = = = = = =

Here is another link showing the professional incest among Common Purpose graduates. Many such Common Purpose webs of association can be drawn.

http://www.adcs.org.uk/contacts/board-of-directors.html
Sonia Sharp – ADCS Board of Directors

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services Ltd

Another director is:

Ms Rosalind Turner, Managing Director, Children, Families & Education Directorate, Kent County Council

…who is also believed to be associated with Common Purpose

= = = = = =

To be fair, Doctor Sonia Sharp has written some excellent material, and has a well-deserved academic reputation in the subjects of racism and bullying.

See attachment CP-SS-App1

= = = = =

The questions must be asked whether or not Sonia Sharpe, as a Common Purpose agent, abused her position for the fraudulent procurement of Common Purpose products and services whilst in the employment of Birmingham, Leeds, Rotherham and Sheffield Local Authorities.

Another questionable consistency with Common Purpose is the trail of tragedy, disaster and incompetence that follows involvement with Common Purpose.

For the failings during her tenure at Rotherham, see CP-SS-App1.doc

= = = = = = =

More recently, questions have been asked of Sonia Sharpe and her employment in Sheffield:

The respondent is John Mothersole, Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council.

John Mothersole is also a supporter of Common Purpose, and hosts Common Purpose ( secretive – Chatham House rules ) meetings within the Town Hall, including intruding into work time, and all at the ratepayers’ expense.

See attachment CP-JM-App3

John Mothersole’s office has also been shown to ignore correspondence, the answers to which would expose unlawful activity of Common Purpose.

The predecessor of John Mothersole was a recruiter for Common Purpose, spoke out in support of Common Purpose, and, with those he supported, was associated with the fraud, corruption and abuses in Sheffield.

= = = = = = = =

The history of career failures repeats itself in Sheffield:

http://www.gatenbysanderson.com/file/file_manager/sheffield_council/Organisational%20Assessment%202009%20-%20Sheffield%20City%20Council.pdf

This is an assessment carried out by the Audit Commission ( sic ) in Sheffield

Page 2 of 10:

“Some of the Council’s services do not perform well or meet the needs of local people. This includes children’s educational achievements and services to help homeless people.”

Page 7:

“Many children in Sheffield have generally not done as well getting their

educational qualifications as children in other places.”

“But overall performance at both Key Stage 2 – 7-11 year olds – and Key Stage 4 – 14-16 year olds – is below the national level and comparatively low. Fewer than half of all children get at least 5 higher grade GCSEs including Maths and English.

Children from certain minority ethnic groups achieve even less on average.

The Council is tackling the problem of underachievement seriously.”

Page 8:

“The educational achievement of Sheffield’s children is still a major concern…”

On 15 July 2010, The Editorial of The Star published:

“It isn’t that long ago however that Sheffield’s SATs scores were little short of a disgrace, with the city in the lower reaches of local authorities,…”

= = = = =  = = =

What was happening in Rotherham when under her tenure?

See CP-SS-App1.doc

Note that the constant failures in Rotherham were mainly attributable to Common Purpose members, i.e. Sonia Sharpe as Executive Director of Childrens’ Services and Matt Gladstone, Assistant Chief Executive, RMBC

( Same structure as in Sheffield )

= = = = = = = =

Now note:

RMBC Invoice CC0126 from Common Purpose. £10,000 ( ! )

“As agreed, contribution towards running costs for Common Purpose Your Turn programmes in Rotherham 2008 / 2009 ”

RMBC Invoice BU0177 from Common Purpose.

One item is for £5,000 ( “ VAT not applicable ” )

There is NO written contract for these amounts.

They are illegal bungs to Common Purpose and authorized by Common Purpose within RMBC = Insider Dealing.

The invoice BU0177 from Common Purpose also bills £1950 to RMBC for Your Turn attendees. The there is the charge to the children themselves.

RMBC Invoice BU0230 from Common Purpose. £10,000 ( ! )

These are also unlawful, as the bills do not represent an auditable costs trail, there was no tendering, no benefit to the ratepayer, no Declarations of Interest, and absolutely no need for the programme.

When requested to explain these bungs, Rotherham council claimed that they were for service delivery. This was a lie. If they were for service delivery, they would have been subject to VAT. In fact, the invoices were almost identical to those submitted to Leeds, the only difference being that in Leeds the same invoices for the bungs were marked as donations.

When it comes to authorizing the invoices in Rotherham, some of the signatures were illegible. When the council was asked to identify the authorizer on the invoices, for example, AW0192 for Common Purpose ‘training’ for Sonia Sharp, April 2005, Rotherham council replied that they could not identify who authorized the payment of the invoice, and neither could those who worked alongside Sonia Sharp or other people asked. Therefore, it is proposed that even the non-bungs are illegal. ( This is in addition to the insider dealing issue. )

The same has happened in Leeds.

The senior officer in charge there was… Sonia Sharpe !

The same is happening in Sheffield.

The senior officer in charge is… Sonia Sharpe !

In Leeds, Sonia Sharpe ‘agreed’ a three-year spending on Common Purpose before she left for Rotherham.

These invoices are after the departure of Sonia Sharp, but the precedent had already been set. For example:

Invoice CC0167.  £10,000 for “contribution towards running costs for Common Purpose Your Turn programmes in Leeds”

Leeds are unable to produce any written agreement for these bizarre and unlawful payments. What has been produced is that original tacit authorization was from Ros Vahey, then the Deputy Chief Executive of Leeds, in correspondence with Common Purpose. Ros Vahey was a member of the Common Purpose Local Advisory Board ! Today, the Chief Executive is a past Common Purpose Advisory Board member. ( Just as the Chief Executive of Sheffield is a Common Purpose supporter. )

Ros Vahey was asked to provide a copy of the funding agreement for the five years that the programme ran, but was disinclined to do so. ( It cannot provide the agreement because none exist! )

When required to provide evidence of benefit of the programme, Ros Vahey wrote, on 6 August 2009:

“My colleague Sonia Sharp was involved in the beginning…”

( Note, the question is not answered. For Sheffield, the council had to admit that there was no benefit to the ratepayer. i.e. ALL local authority spending on Common Purpose is illegal )

The involvement of Ross Vahey with unlawful invoicing on behalf of Common Purpose goes even further. On one £10k bung Leeds were asked to provide the original orders. There were NONE. When asked who authorized the £10k bung to Common Purpose, the answer came back – Ross Vahey ! It gets worse, before Ross Vahey left Leeds she was asked by Common Purpose to authorize a further bung of £5k.

Note again, nothing in writing, all arranged verbally, or through private emails or private Common Purpose meetings, avoiding local scrutiny and bypassing democratic mechanisms.

Sonia Sharp received £280 from Leeds for attending a conference on 10 March 2005, but in April 2005 Rotherham Council paid for her Common Purpose course in April 2005.  Sonia Sharpe joined RMBC on 10 April 2005.

The invoices for the illegal bungs to Common Purpose can be spotted easily.

They do not attract VAT. Often they are even described as ‘donations’ on the invoices.

In fact, in Leeds alone, the estimated total amount of unlawful spending on Common Purpose is over £160,000 !

Here is an example of how one aspect of the scam works:

Here are some samples of who authorised payments in Leeds Education:

2004/05     £9,600       Sonia Sharpe ( year 1 of 3 year commitment )

2005/06     £10,000     Sonia Sharpe ( year 2 of 3 year commitment )

2006/07     £10,000     Sonia Sharpe ( year 3 of 3 year commitment )

2007/08     £10,000     Chris Edwards

What is NOT said here is that Sonia Sharpe became a graduate of Common Purpose in 2003, and that Chris Edwards was on the Common Purpose Advisory Board. Sonia Sharp joined Rotherham on 10 April 2005.

In addition, Leeds ( as with Rotherham ) have been unable to provide any written confirmation of any such agreement or commitment.

Note that the ‘commitment’ ( a term used by Common Purpose on the invoices, for which there is no contract, no written agreement, and therefore illegal ) continued for years after Sonia Sharp left Leeds to go to Rotherham, where she sat another Common Purpose course in April 2005, promoted more Common Purpose courses, and still made no Declaration of Interest.

The same is happening in Sheffield, and in Bradford.

Here are some total expenditures for Leeds on Common Purpose.

2004/05     £39,546.50

2005/06     £53,870.51

2006/07     £54,936.75

2007/08     £20,116.75

Expenditure on Common Purpose by Leeds Council was authorised by

Paul Rogerson, Chief Executive of Leeds Council, and Member of the Local Advisory Board of Common Purpose. No Declaration of Interest.

There is a pattern. Using its ‘insider’, Common Purpose can deliver its products and services, for example, the Your Turn projects mentioned here. There then follows invoices for £10,000, or £5,000 – all unlawful, but promoted, procured and passed via Common Purpose insiders. This can be seen in Leeds, Bradford, Rotherham and Sheffield, to name but a few. The same ‘insider dealing’ model also applies to how Common Purpose recruits its graduates on to its courses.

These apply to the ‘training’ courses for leaders and potential leaders deemed to be useful to Common Purpose. It is Common Purpose who target, then decide who can undertake ‘training’, and all at the expense of the ratepayer.

The Common Purpose Advisory Board members are, in effect, the sales  stooges for Common Purpose.

They are the money-makers for Common Purpose.

Examples have already been provided where decisions are made at Common Purpose meetings that become financially binding upon the host organizations, such as local authorities, whilst bypassing the local democratic mechanisms and avoiding scrutiny.

= = = = = =

How do the above scams fit into the national picture?

The above amounts, which seem small when taken in isolation, can be put into a national framework. During the tenure of the nulabor government, it has been estimated that the total invoices to Common Purpose is over £100million – yes, over one hundred million pounds. Also to be accounted for are the hundreds of millions of pounds of Eurofunds that were fraudulently acquired then unlawfully disbursed via quangos and groups infiltrated by Common Purpose graduates – always in positions of power – and leading not only beyond authority, but beyond the law, and with nulabor support.

= = = = =

The Your Turn events are potentially the most pernicious. Common Purpose advertise these events for children with potential future leadership prospects. As such, they would be valuable to Common Purpose. ( Again, refer to the documents concerning Matthew Byrne and Jamie Rennie )

On 5 November 2008, this citizen pointed out to the Full Council that there was no evidence of Common Purpose having carried out CRB checks on those delivering its childrens’ services on behalf of the council. The response of Council Leader Paul Scriven, on camera, was to launch into a tirade of abuse against this citizen, falsely accusing this citizen of making serious allegations of abuse. The Star, a corporate sponsor of Common Purpose, published this and other lies, for which they had to apologise when they lost the case raised with the Press Complaints Commission. However, despite asking again for this evidence, and being promised ( by Paul Scriven at Full Council in January 2010 ) a report on the issue at Full Council from the Common Purpose graduate, Executive Director Sonia Sharp, there has still been not one shred of evidence offered.

On 7 July 2010, over eighteen months after raising the concerns about Common Purpose, and several other public humiliations from the Council Leader, there is still no evidence of CRB checks, yet the council is continuing with the unlawful financing of Common Purpose events.

At Full Council of 7 July, Cabinet Member Colin Ross said:

“All issues concerning child safety shall be considered with the utmost importance. There is nothing more important to this council as corporate parents.”

Three things wrong here –

a) Colin Ross personally supported the corrupt Lowedges forum in its vicious campaign of abuses against Annette Stainrod, then Sheila Brighton, in its vicious, relentless and ultimately failed attempts by the council to secure control of the community assets for its own forum. He also personally supported the abusers whose actions included attempts to have children thrown on the street, as but one part of the council sponsored systematic abuse.

b) Sonia Sharpe and Common Purpose?

c) Why has he not ensured that evidence of the CRB checks was provided?

= = = = = = = = =

Summary:

Where ever there is Common Purpose, there is failure, fraud, abuses and  corruption.

Sonia Sharpe is now receiving £140,000 per annum from Sheffield City Council

= = = = =

Lee Adams, the well-remunerated Deputy Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council, is also a member of the Common Purpose Advisory Board.

Lee Adams was the Assistant Chief Executive in Rotherham in 2004, up to 2006 ( ! ) and had a very short tenure during 2008 as Chief Executive of North East Derbyshire District Council before her current job in Sheffield in 2009.

There would therefore have been an overlap of the tenures of Dr Sonia Sharp and Professor Lee Adams at Rotherham.

In a recent interview with Common Purpose, Lee Adams was said to be the designated ‘Organising Officer’ with the local council for Common Purpose.

See attachment CP-LA-App2.doc

= = = = = = = =

As has been seen in Sheffield for over a decade, those who expose fraud and corruption, or are even arbitrarily deemed to be a potential threat, are subjected to a vindictive campaign of ruthless, relentless, systematic abuse.

The extent of the fraud and corruption in Sheffield is far greater than in Rotherham, whilst at the same time it is noted that several of those involved in the fraud, corruption and abuses of citizens have transferred from Rotherham to Sheffield. These have been identified previously.

= = = = = = = =

What happens if someone asks a local council questions about Common Purpose?

The Common Purpose graduate in the local authority, under instruction from Common Purpose, informs Common Purpose of the FoI request, and includes the personal details of the requester. ( Breaking the law ) Common Purpose then reply, offering to ‘help’ the local authority to process the FoI request, so as to relieve them of the unnecessary and burdensome task designed to cause disruption. Of course what follows are ruses to deny the information. ( Breaking the law ) Meanwhile, having unlawfully gleaned the personal details of requesters, the list is put on a spreadsheet and distributed, including the personal details, ( Breaking the law ) throughout the country, with a covering letter that accuses the requesters of being involved in a campaign against Common Purpose, a threat to their well-being, whilst defaming those web sites that have exposed Common Purpose criminality.

The Information Commissioner found Common Purpose guilty of breaking the law.

Note that the Information Commissioner has never prosecuted Common Purpose, nor even forced compliance, even when the Information Commissioner’s Office was itself forced to issue a report showing how Common Purpose deliberately set up the illegal system for the express purpose of breaking the law.

Common Purpose attempted to lie its way out of this situation, claiming that the Information Commissioner’s Officer had advised them that it was OK to keep records of requesters of information. This was a deliberate deception. Common Purpose was allowed to keep records of requesters who asked Common Purpose information. It is not allowed to unlawfully glean the personal details of requesters from third parties such as local authorities and national institutions, then distribute these personal details nationally, accompanied by defamatory and perhaps libelous accusations.

But then again, the Information Commissioner’s Office harbours Common Purpose, via its Common Purpose graduates, so it would be against its own interests to prosecute one of its own.

The same can be said of the police, with the addition here that Common Purpose graduates within the police ( especially within South Yorkshire Police, who also failed miserably in their duties when given evidence of the Eurofrauds, including when the signature of the previous Chief Constable appeared on a fraudulent application with the signature of the previous Chief Executive. ) are recorded as deliberately blocking the processing of criminal intelligence about Common Purpose and preventing the upholding of the law.

This applies especially within South Yorkshire Police, who also failed miserably in their duties when given evidence of the Eurofrauds, including when the signature of the previous Chief Constable appeared on a fraudulent application with the signature of the previous Chief Executive. In addition, Common Purpose graduates within the police have attended meetings promoting and purchasing Common Purpose ‘products’ and ‘services’ whilst never declaring an interest.

= = = = = =

Perhaps our newest MP, Paul Blomfield, Labour, Sheffield Central, could be invited to step in to have Common Purpose expunged. Here is his electoral pitch:

Paul Blomfield is Labour MP for Sheffield Central

“It was the injustice of racism that first got me involved in politics. While still at school, I joined the Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) which campaigned for democracy and human rights for all the…”

= = = = = = = =

On Wednesday 1^st February 2006, Paul Scriven proposed a motion to the Full Council that included:

“(g)                believes that as a City we have always made a firm commitment to oppose victimisation and racism in all its forms and believes that we must always continue to do so.

So, Paul Scriven, here is an opportunity to demonstrate your opposition to victimisation and racism.

= = = = = =

Note the auditor links with Common Purpose, hence no exposures by either the Audit Commission or KPMG. Please ask for further details.

= = = = =

Is Haringey Borough Council, of Social Services Baby P murder fame, lying over Common Purpose? More than one staff member had been Common Purpose trained. Assistant Director of Community Health and Social Services Carole Wilson attended the 1995 / 1996 MATRIX Common Purpose Course. = = = = =

Sonia Sharp is on a Board of Sheffield First Partnership

http://www.sheffieldfirst.net/the-partnership/health-and-wellbeing-partnership/board-members-continued

This is what is written:

“Sonia Sharp is Executive Director of Children & Young People’s Services at Sheffield City Council, having been Director of Children’s Services in Rotherham for three years previously.  Building on a background in teaching, research and psychology, Sonia has a proven track record in children’s services in a city context.  She was deputy Chief Executive of Education Leeds – the company established to take the local authority out of special measures and Assistant Director in Birmingham.

Sonia is passionate about improving outcomes for every child in Sheffield.”

The Star introduced her appointment to Sheffield by Jan Wilson, 2008.

“Having trained as an educational psychologist, Dr Sharp worked in Barnsley, Lincolnshire and Buckinghamshire before becoming assistant director for access and inclusion in Birmingham. She then moved on to become deputy chief executive of Education Leeds before taking the post in Rotherham.
Dr Sharp, … , is an internationally-renowned expert on bullying. She played an influential role in the so-called Sheffield Project, which was published as Don’t Suffer in Silence and formed the basis for a key Government strategy to tackle the problem of bullying in schools.
She will take up her Sheffield role – advertised with a £140,000 salary – in the summer.”

= = = = =

Please now refer to document SCC-LA180809.doc

This details how and why, in legal terms, Common Purpose graduates are statutorily required to enter their association on a Register Of Interests held by the local authority, and make Declarations of Interest where appropriate, including submitting all the minutes of all meetings where the council and ratepayers could be affected.

= = = = = =

There are some questions given to Sheffield City Council for consideration on Wednesday 28 July 2010, at their Full Council Emergency Budget meeting.

These are on attachment CP-Q4FC-App4.doc

= = = = = = =

This citizen shall continue to report upon serious concerns and inform elected members and the public. This shall continue to be done without bias, political agenda, fear or favour to any individual.

An as yet unnamed elite, lawless organisation is actually running the country by 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 be controlled must be destroyed by nulabor. This unelected cult cadre bypasses Parliament, the Judiciary, local democracy, and all the institutional safeguards that were designed to ensure our freedoms, especially free speech.

This corrupt nulabor government publicly stated its intent to devolve democracy to its lowest practicable level. This was a cynical lie, pre 1997. All that nulabor has done is to create and maintain the illusion of devolution, whilst imposing ever stronger central control. Throughout the country, from 1992 onwards, nulabor encouraged the setting up of community based consultation and activity groups, such as community forums, that gave the appearance of meaningful engagement with citizens. What was really happening was that these groups were strictly controlled, placemen were imposed, local people ousted, and puppets padded out the group. Then false claims of representation of the community were made. Any existing, genuinely bottom-up, and self-managing community group that did not accede to ( forum ) control were destroyed and replaced. In effect, nulabor was consulting with itself.

The above process was then repeated in all local, area-wide, city and regional 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 on in an unbroken chain to No10, via quangos, Regional Development Associations, Regional Government Offices, etc.Another reason for the creation of these groups is that they can be controlled in networks, meeting and making decisions outside of the democratic structures ( and illegally in many cases ), leading beyond their authority, imposing influence, interest and control beyond their legal remit, and thus creating the impression of delivering on an otherwise undeliverable policy.

Over the years, especially as seen in Sheffield since 1992, citizens have become increasingly disengaged, and the voting figures have plummeted.

There have been attempts to re-engage citizens in politics, for example, the Baroness Kennedy consultation, and the introduction of the doomed Sustainable Communities Act. Why doomed? Because the same tactics, at least as seen in Sheffield, are still 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 control, whilst falsely claiming representation. The current government initiatives are simply ‘ more of the same ’ dressed differently.

The whole nulabor 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 local government consultation.

This nulabor government is corrupt. The nulabor corruption is absolute, lead from the top down, imposed through all tiers of social and government control, down to street level. Being rotten to the core and from the core, everything it touches it taints. Having neither the ability 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 the creation and maintenance of an illusion of consultation, followed by false claims of consensus. In truth, central control is tightened, as so-called community leaders are politically placed and imposed, and so on upwards through every control tier to nulabor HQ.

Meanwhile, it is daily reported how our leaders lie, cheat, steal, bully and abuse, 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 of anyone arbitrarily deemed to be a potential threat.

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

It is necessary to create control structures, finance them, then train people to head these on behalf of the nulabor cult, 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 to facilitate the falsification of evidence of prior consultation and consensus needed for eligibility for the funds. To staff these structures, and to ensure placement of the chosen people in the right places, there needs to be a nulabor centrally controlled leadership training establishment, working as a charity. The truth is, the training establishment is not training leaders at all, it is doing the opposite, training automatons to do the bidding of their masters, regardless of morality, ethics or the law.

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

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

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

Once the right steps are in place, the nulabor project can continue unfettered, having control of people, publicity, processes, and pecuniary pursuits. Threats are destroyed. All this being done covertly, with the cadre elite of the cult even deciding who can have what information.

This statement can be extended to democracy itself. Perhaps it is not only the government that must be replaced, but the style of government, as the current flavour leaves such a bad taste. Our leading politicians, to whom we are entitled to look for behavioural guidance, have failed to make the distinction between what is legal and what it right. Finding a loophole to do something does not make what is wrong, right. The very act of looking for a loophole is evidence of intent to act amorally. It is no use saying that no rules have been broken, and therefore the behaviour is OK. Those not acting in the spirit of the law, or not capable of making the distinction between right and wrong, have no place in our society, and certainly not as our leaders or representatives in any government.

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

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

———————————————————————————————–

Notelets

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

Why is nulabor seemingly deliberately doing everything it can to ensure the development 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 nulabor its excuse to impose a dictatorship – which is, by and large, what we have had for the past several years, with increasing impositions upon the freedoms of citizens.

To date, every law introduced for security reasons has been used against the citizens, for no other reason than for nulabor’s preservation of power.

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

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

See also lawlessnulabor.docx add guilty by accusation

One reason why the UK politicians don’t care about EU corruption is because this institutionally corrupt nulabor government has fraudulently acquired billions of EU regeneration funds and instead used them to finance the nulabor re-engineering project. During this time, corrupt individuals have become very rich, whilst whistleblowers had their lives destroyed. Even OLAF, whilst under Kinnock’s tenure, was proven to be corrupt.

Our leading politicians, to whom we are entitled to look for behavioural guidance, have failed to make the distinction between what is legal and what is right. Those unable to make the distinction have no place in our society, and certainly not as our leaders or representatives in any government.

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

Sample of emails to the audit commission.

These are the salient emails.

Many came with attachments, these being the supporting documents.

30/04/05

Confirmation of email sent to the Audit Commission

30/04/2005

Thank you for sending your comments to the Audit Commission.

Your email was sent to hi@audit-commission.gov.uk

The following message was sent:

Feedback type: housing

Comments: Could you please provide a contact name for the

person dealing with Sheffield Homes next

September?

Regards

Martin

= = = = =

31/05/05

13 Evidential corruption files sent to Sue

= = = = =

21/06/05

18+21/07/05

Files sent

= = = = =

17/08/05

Notification to local Audit Commission of corruption within SCC

= = = = =

22/08/05 ( + files )

Dear Sue,

Would you please pout me in contact with the auditor for Sheffield Homes.

Thanks

Martin Brighton

= = = = =

= = = = =

23/08/05

From Sue

Dear Mr Brighton

As requested

Sheffield Homes Limited is audited by KPMG LLP

= = = = =

= = = = =

23/08/05

Dear Sue,

Thank you for your reply.

I understood that the audit commission was involved in some housing assessments on Sheffield Homes in the near future, and the results of this would determine whether or not Sheffield Homes gets the next tranche of government money it needs for ALMO boards ( especially Shefield South ) and upgrading properties.

Earlier this year there were adverts placed by the audit commission for assessors.

Do you have their contact details?

Meanwhile, as far as KPMG is concerned, their track record suggests they couldn’t audit their way out of a paper bag. My experience of them is one of gross incompetence, obfuscation, deceit, patronisation, secrecy and obsequious lickspittling to Sheffield Council.

Regards

Martin Brighton

= = = = =

= = = = =

25/08/05

From Sue

Dear Mr Brighton

I can confirm that the next Audit Commission inspection of Sheffield Homes is scheduled for November 05. I can also confirm that the inspection results do influence the release of additional funding from the government. As I explained in my first email to you, I have made the housing inspectors aware of your concerns around tenant participation so that they can take this into account when planning and undertaking their inspection.

I have checked with the recruitment side of the housing inspectorate and unfortunately they have filled all their vacancies for tenant inspection advisors and are not expecting to have to advertise again this year.

In any event it is Commission policy that tenant inspector advisors are not allowed to participate in any inspection in the area where they live. The same rule applies to our own inspectors.

Yours sincerely

Sue Sunderland

= = = = =

= = = = =

30/08/05

From Sue

Dear Mr Brighton

The inspector leading the Sheffield ALMO inspection is Julie Slatter – her email address is j-slatter@audit-commission.gov.uk

She is already aware of your concerns as I have passed your earlier communications on to her for information.

Yours sincerely

Sue Sunderland

= = = = =

= = = = =

08/09/05

To local office of Audit Commission

Subject: confession

Dear All,

….and the walls come tumbling down.

There will be many more exposés following this, and the domino effect will lead to the inevitable downfall of this corrupt government.

I’m now distributing for free and at no cost and without expense to the recipients who will have to pay nothing ( if not less ) an introductory CD-ROM of files. Whilst these are for the problems up this end, the underlying principles apply throughout the UK.

If any person wanting a CD-ROM would like to provide an address….

Regards

Martin

= = = = =

09+16+23+30/09/05

04+08+10/10/05

= = = = =

21/11/05

To Sue

Dear auditor,

Could you please indicate what has happened with the documents that have been e-mailed to you over the past months, i.e.

a) to whom were they forwarded

b) what was the reply

c) what action has been taken by the audit commission to put right what has been done wrong by the corrupt sheffield council, etc

Yours sincerely,

= = = = =

26/11/05

To Sue

= = = = =

27/01/06

Dear Sue Sunderland,

Thanks for this.

I cannot vouch for what the Head Office may have said to you, but I do not make statements that I can not substantiate.

I have been providing the Audit Commission with material since before your tenure, and will continue to do so.

It is true that I have requested a meeting.

I note your personal reply, and I thank your personally for doing so. If I have a specific case for your attention, I’ll contact you, ask for a meeting, present the evidence, and discuss how to proceed. I would imply that a lack of any action on your part impugns you personally.

As for the housing issues, I can now state unequivocally that Sheffield Homes and Sheffield City Council have acted corruptly. I can also now confirm that the Audit Commission will have to explain why it failed to act appriopriately so far.

Once again, thanks for your reply.

Regards

= = = = =

files sent

03+23/01/06

03/02/06

01/03/06

= = = = =

26/08/06

Dear Sue,

The corrupt Sheffield City Council has refused to provide me with information relating to the Annual Accounts.

After you have confirmed with the corrupt council that the information has been withheld, please ensure that the relevant law is upheld.

Please be aware that any activities in this respect are being monitored, and all documents shall be deemed Public Domain.

Best Wishes,

Martin Brighton

= = = = =

29/08/06

Dear Sue Sunderland,

Thank you for your reply.

Of course I would not ask that the Audit Commission do anything beyond its remit.

When you conduct your audit, however, you should be able to confirm that the decision to replace the alleged accounting shortfall of a theoretical or virtual £14m with the ratepayers’ actual and real £14m was done so on the basis of full and fair consideration of all the facts.

Therefore, if the accounts are to be confirmed as an accurate record, it can be expected that you must have sight of all the supporting objective evidence to support the council’s claims with respect to the South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit.

Enforcement is one issue, qualification of the accounts is another.

Meanwhile, having taken advice, I have been informed that the council’s refusal to provide me the information requested constitutes a criminal act.

Interesting times ahead.

Yours sincerely,

= = = = =

02/09/06

Dear Sue,

Thanks for this.

When you say that you have had access to al the information, can you confirm that you have seen and verified the objective evidence supporting the claims made by Sheffield City Council to justify the provision of its share of £14million to replace the alleged money missing from the now defunct South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit?

Regards

= = = = =

= = = = =

RE: corruption

11/09/2006

Mr Brighton

Sorry for not responding earlier, September is a very busy time with a number of audits of accounts to review.

I can however assure you that we have seen and audited the underlying evidence to support the exceptional item entries in the consolidated revenue account which relate to the provision for losses and costs associated with the financial irregularities within the South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit.

Yours sincerely

Sue Sunderland

= = = = =

= = = = =

11/09/06

Dear Sue Sunderland,

Thank you for this.

The council have refused to provide me with the evidence to which I am entitled under the FoIA, this being the same evidence to which you have already had access.

Whilst not your concern, the council repeatedly lied to me when refusing my request for the information.

One of the implied reasons given was that no-one could see the supporting evidence because to do so could prejudice a prosecution for which the Serious Fraud Office are preparing.

If the council is telling the truth, then there must be a prosecution and the evidence will come out in open court.

To date, no-one has offered the slightest shred of evidence to support the claims made, and so, in such absence, must insist upon my rights as a citizen of the area in question being able to see the evidence for myself.

If there is to be no prosecution, then the council has perpetrated a £14million scam upon the ratepayers of South Yorkshire.

There is also the issue of why the consequences of the failings of the audit function of Sheffield can be legally borne by the ratepayers in the ‘sharing’ authorities.

Once again, thanks for your reply.

Regards

= = = = =

03/10/07

To Sue

acknowledgment of having seen some documents

= = = = =

03/09/08

s-sunderland@audit-commission.gov.uk

SCC blog

= = = = =

15/09/08

to Sue

SCC Annual Audit

= = = = =

30/09/08

to Sue

Dear Sue Sunderland,

Please find attached a courtesy copy of a reply to a brief conversation with Liz Bashforth last Wednesday.

It covers many issues – just pick out those of interest.

Whilst some information has been provided, I maintain that there is much that has not been disclosed.

I still do not know who advised Peter Harrow, and why.

I am also concerned about the refusal, and reasons given, for access to documents.

Regards

Martin

= = = = =

05/11/08

to Sue note also sent to S France

Dear Recipient,

For each to your own remit, the attached set of documents provide the basis of a current

complaint, or cause for investigation, or background information, for appropriate action.

Please ensure that no-one within your organisation is associated in any way with the

third party, the identity of which will become self-evident when you begin your inquiry.

Yours sincerely,

= = = = =

11/11/08

To Sue

Formal objection to accounts

= = = = =

13/11/08

Dear Sue Sunderland,

It is clear that the council is prepared to do everything it can to prevent disclosures of

tens of thousands of off-book expenditure that has excluded Full Council, Cabinet and

Scrutiny.

Regards

= = = = =

14/11/08

Dear Sue Sunderland,

You are right, there should have been an attachment.

Please accept my apologies.

Rather than wait, I’ll send it now, as I’m ‘under the cosh’ from a council minority and some politcal activists.

The bottom line is that I NEVER lie.

Please also bear in mind when considering all these false accusations against me about never producing evidence that much of the evidence relating to the ‘Third Party’ was provided by the legal department itself !

Surely, one point for the Audit Commission must be why the council just don’t disclose the public information in the first place !

regards

= = = = =

20/11/08

Dear Sue Sunderland,

I have now collated the documents that contain the information required by your remit.

I will extract the applicable specific sections tomorrow ( Friday ).

Thank you very much for the correspondence.

Today I shall be meeting with John Mothersole.

I hope that the problems will be solved.

However, a barrister advised:

” Offers of ‘discussion’ from the council only occur when they know they are

wrong and want to look for a way out of their situation.”

As I have not had any negative dealings with John Mothersole, I will give

him the benefit of the doubt on the first occasion.

Whilst the attachments continue with the general theme of the third party,

and not wholly within your remit, they should provide both background and

context as to why this council cannot be trusted.

I must state here that I only learned of the third party relatively recently, and

have nothing personal against the third party. I’m simply following the evidence.

Regards

= = = = =

23/11/08

Dear Sue Sunderland,

Thank you for you letter of 14 November 2008, in response to my e-mails dated 5th and 11th November 2008.

I shall first reply to your letter, and then provide evidence, bearing in mind paragraph 56 of The Code of Audit Practice, and the pamphlet ‘Councils’ Accounts Your rights: England’

You are right in your identification of the ‘Third Party’.

I thank you for your timely intervention with the provision of some of the council’s financial material that was being unlawfully withheld. Some of that information was provided. It is acknowledged that enforcing the provision of the remainder of the information is beyond your remit, as is the refusal of the council to explain why it repeatedly lied to me in its specious excuses given to avoid providing the information required. The issue of the outstanding material is now with the Information Officer, as the council has breached both the FoIA and DPA.

Whilst the audit of accounts for the year 2007 / 08 has now been completed and closed, there are still issues, whether in the accounts, or deliberately withheld from the accounts, that are for consideration as to whether the Audit Commission should tell the public in a public interest report.

With respect to the issue of a failure of the third party to produce CRB checks following targeting of 12-15 year olds by council staff associated with the third party please be assured that the police have been duly informed.

As an aside, some financial material had been withheld that concerned the fraud and corruption involving the SYTSU. Having spoken with senior management, I have said that provision of this material can be delayed until such time as both legal and civil actions are completed. This is a reasonable position as premature disclosure could prejudice the outcome of any court hearing, thus potentially damaging prospects of the recovery of what is, after all, millions of pounds of ratepayers’ money.

Since 11 November I have met with the Chief Executive Officer, John Mothersole. The subject of the questions of 5 November was discussed. Accordingly, I would strongly, yet respectfully, advise that only John Mothersole be your contact on these matters in future.

= = = = =

27/11/08

Dear Sue Sunderland,

Since last writing to you I have been reviewing the membership of the third

party within the council and within the ‘community’ organisations in this area.

I have also noted local authority ‘contributions’ to the third party.

It would appear that I had grossly underestimated the financial impact of the

third party upon the ratepayer.

Third party membership, in keeping with its published policy, is chosen for

the placement of its members in target organisations so as to be able to

bring undue influence, interest and control, especially financial, to bear

beyond legal authority.

One consistent example is the control over so-called ‘community’

organisations and their respective umbrella control mechanisms such as

partnerships and alliances, and alleged ‘service’ organisations to these

community groups. As far as I can see, these groups are being used as

vehicles to fradulently acquire money ( for example, by falsely claiming

to represent a community, and falsely claiming to have community

consent ) for projects that the ratepayer might have no knowledge.

The membership of the third party throughout these organisations

shows that there is a well-cordinated structure operating as a totally

separate administration independently of recognised local democratic

government, and financed by the ratepayer.

Another consistency – and I concede that this is outside the remit of the

Audit Commission, is that those involved with the third party have, around

the city, been the same people involved with the dirty tricks and abuses

of those who call ‘foul’.

I also have evidence of third party graduates involved with fraud relating to

eurofunds, and will take this information to the police, notwithstanding

that the senior police member that has been blocking my actions is

himself a third party graduate !

I shall be making a follow-up FoI request to the council to establish the

full extent of the ratepayers’ exposure in this regard. Given the response

to the initial request, the case for doing so is compelling.

Best Regards

= = = = =

07/02/09

Dear Audit Commission,

I have recently received material from your organisation that

is bizarre, unreasonable, irrational and perverse.

It concerned an organisation called Common Purpose.

I have noticed that the Audit Commission is publicised as being a

‘main sponsor’ of the SOLACE Foundation Imprint ( SFI ), which is

local government’s foremost leadership publication, among whose

SFI Editorial board is a Lucy de Groot.

Lucy de Groot, among her other connections:

- associate director for the Audit Commission’s Best Value Inspectorate (2000)

- became Executive Director of the IDeA in September 2003

- a Trustee of Common Purpose UK

- a Member of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Governance and Public Services Committee

- etc

Prior to making any formal complaint, some initial background and context is required.

Is the audit commission in any way directly or indirectly associated with Common Purpose?

Are there any members, associates, graduates, or officers of Common Purpose

within the audit commission?

Yours sincerely,

= = = = =

05/03/09

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

Thank you for your reply, it is much appreciated.

Could you confirm if your reply was for the Bristol office only, or for the whole of the Audit Commission?

If the former, could you you provide the national picture, sorted by office.

If the latter, and further to the former option above, could you please:

a) Have another look at the figures provided to you, especially 2005 / 06, when under the leadership of Steve Bundred

b) provide copies of the invoices

c) provide the titles / names of the courses / names of attendees ( who agree to such disclosure as a precondition to taking the courses )

d) the job titles / names of those who authorised the expenditure.

In addition, as Common Purpose advertises itself as a leadership organisation:

e) what benefit to the taxpayer results from employees of the audit commission taking these courses, and

f) what is the policy of the audit commission with respect to Common Purpose specifically, and involvement with external organsiations generally?

g) how can the audit commission ensure that due declarations of interest are made should there be any issues arising that involve Common Purpose and are to be dealt with by audit commission employees who may be officers, graduates or in any other way associated with Common Purpose?

Once again, I thank you for the information you have provided so far, and look forward to receiving the above clarifications and follow-up information.

Yours sincerely,

= = = = =

11/06/09

to public-enquiries@audit-commission.gov.uk

Dear Sirs,

Your help would be most appreciated.

In my area there is a Tenants and Residents Association.

I am a tenant, and pay the tenants’ levy.

Since June 2005, I have not been able to obtain copies of the minutes of the two-monthly meetings.

Both the council and the council’s housing management agent continuously promote their commitment to openness, transparency and accountability.

However, whenever I ask for copies of the TARA minutes I am refused.

The Chair of a nearby TARA said that they never release the minutes of their meetings.

The council, the housing management agent, and the local Area Board all refuse point blank to uphold their commitment and refuse to even contact the TARA to obtain the minutes.

The TARA continues to be secretive.

It is at this point, having come to a dead end, what your opinion, or policy is, and would be appreciated.

For example, are the minutes of TARA meetings considered to be so private that even their own tenants are not allowed to see them?

Thank you,

Yours sincerely,

= = = = =

= = = = =

09/04/09

from Shaun to me

correction of earlier mistakes and some further information

= = = = =

= = = = =

= = = = =

10 April 2009

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

Thank you for your reply.

I am grateful for your efforts to provide the information requested.

There are a few issues about the reply.

This reply may therefore be considered as a request for a review, as required by the Freedom of Information Act.

Please be assured that this is in no way to be considered as a complaint.

On 5 March two questions were:

‘(c) provide the titles / names of the courses / names of attendees (who agree to such disclosure as a precondition to taking the courses) and

(d) the job titles / names of those who authorised the expenditure’

Your reply of 9 April was:

‘The names and job titles of the attendees and those who authorised the expenditure have been withheld due to Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, which states that personal information should be withheld if its disclosure would breach any of the eight Data Protection Principles defined by the Data Protection Act.

* The disclosure of this personal information would breach the First Data Protection Principle because the individuals in question would not expect their personal information to be made publicly available.

* Such a disclosure would therefore be unlawful, due to a breech of the confidentiality expected between employee and employer, and unfair, as the individual does not expect their personal information to be released. This would therefore be a breach of the first Data Protection Principle, which states that personal information shall be processed fairly and lawfully.’

I would like a review of this decision. The reasons are given below:

Here is a quote from Common Purpose to those who receive training:

“Data Protection

If accepted as a participant on a Common Purpose programme, you are agreeing that Common Purpose may use your data for the following purposes:

• we may publish your name, job title, employer organisation and programme attended as part of our promotional materials and in the Common Purpose graduate directory ”

The above clauses are on their application forms, and applicants are not eligible to attend training unless and until they agree to the above conditions.

Common Purpose also nationally distribute the personal details of its ‘graduates’ to local authorities, national and regional institutions, and corporate sponsors.

Under the above conditions, and not least because attendees of Common Purpose have waived their rights to anonymity, Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act is not applicable in this case. Indeed, the attendees fully expect that their personal information shall be made publicly available.

Therefore, I respectfully propose, there are no legitimate grounds for refusing to provide the names of attendees. On this basis I ask that you review your decision in this respect.

As for deciding, on the same grounds, not to release the names of those who authorised the payments, the following applies:

In September 2008 the Information Commissioner instructed the Department for Communities and Local Government to release personal details of employees. The Commissioner says: ‘it is reasonable in the circumstances to release third party information without the consent of the individuals because they were acting in a professional rather than a private capacity’.

I would argue that those authorising payments were acting in a professional capacity. I would also propose that those authorising payments may be classed, in the context of this request for a review, in the same manner as a civil servant, in that their remuneration is ultimately funded by the taxpayer.

The Commissioner’s guidance is that ‘information which is about someone acting in an official or work capacity should normally be provided’.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I respectfully ask that you review the decision not to provide the names of those who authorized the payments.

Perhaps a rhetorical question could be:

How can you be assured that the person that authorized the payments to Common Purpose was not himself / herself a graduate of Common Purpose?

On 5 March the question was:

(e) what benefit to the taxpayer results from employees of the audit commission taking these courses, and

Your reply of 9 April was:

‘The Audit Commission achieves its objectives through its people, resulting in a better managed Audit Commission and a better regulated public sector. The delivery of a comprehensive range of Training and Development opportunities is key to making this happen. In addition we are a committed Investor in People. The Commission continues to meet the Standard and our performance has significantly improved in a number of areas.’

Thank you for this reply. However, it does not answer the question asked. The information being sought includes but is not limited to the financial and performance evidence that attendance on the Common Purpose courses resulted in tangible and measurable benefits to both the organisation, and in turn, the taxpayer. It was reassuring to note that The Commission has significantly improved, but of concern that there appeared to be no review, feedback and monitoring processes in place to provide an assurance that the taxpayers’ money was well spent. I therefore ask that you review your reply to question e) of 5 March.

Perhaps a rhetorical question could be:

How can you be assured that the person who identified the attendee for a Common Purpose course was not himself / herself a graduate of Common Purpose?

On 5 March I asked:

‘(g) how can the audit commission ensure that due declarations of interest are made should there be any issues arising that involve Common Purpose and are to be dealt with by audit commission employees who may be officers, graduates or in any other way associated with Common Purpose?’

Thank you for your reply, which referenced your Code of Conduct.

The absolute principle of independence of audit is inviolable, and it was pleasing to see reference to the requirement for declarations.

Normally, it is not required to explain why a question is asked, but I believe that to do so here would be both reasonable and helpful.

The reason for asking question (g) was because it has only been learned retrospectively, and often by accident, that those involved with audits, reviews, inspections, etc were graduates of Common Purpose, as were the employees of those subject to their purview. Given that authorities and organisations are so reluctant to admit who their Common Purpose members are, there can no assurance of independence of audit.

I will labour the point, but such is necessary.

Common Purpose holds its meetings according to ‘Chatham House Rules’, which identifies Common Purpose under the Civil Service Code of Conduct as a secret organisation. The published agendas of Common Purpose meetings show that discussion and decision items concern imposing influence, interest and a measure of control over the work that graduates do for their respective employers. In addition, decisions have been recorded at Common Purpose meetings that have a financial impact upon the employer organisation, circumventing, for example, the statutory local democratic processes and financial scrutiny. However, there is never any declaration of interest or declaration recorded in Local Authority minutes whether or not the employee is a graduate of Common Purpose. It is also noted that, according to the Common Purpose publicity, it is Common Purpose that identifies those to be chosen for training, and decides their applicability according to their usefulness to Common Purpose.

Under the rules declaration of membership is mandatory. Unless graduates of Common Purpose declare their membership there is no way of knowing whether there are any conflicts of interest. Accordingly, to protect the public and ensure openness and transparency, the minutes of the Common Purpose Advisory Meetings attended by Audit Commission employees must also be available. The Audit Commission, although a quango, has employees that are classed as civil servants for the purposes of the Code of Conduct.

Therefore, it would be appreciated if you could arrange for your employees who are associated with Common Purpose in any way to collect and collate the minutes of Common Purpose meetings. These can be sent on to me in due course.

It was pleasing to see in your reply of 9 April:

‘Failure to declare any relevant interest or relationship will be dealt with under the misconduct procedure.’

Without a register of employees of The Commission who are also Common Purpose graduates, and without access to a register of auditee employers who are graduates of Common Purpose, the principle of independence of audit can never be proved.

I will give one example.

For one major funding application, the officer on behalf of the applicant, the supervisor, the chair of the review board, the government civil servant, and the authorizing agent for the funder, and the final assessor / auditor for contract compliance, were ALL graduates of Common Purpose, but there had been NO declarations of interest. It came as no surprise that it was discovered that the original application was bogus. The money was never recovered. Proceedings are ongoing, despite the delay caused by the fact that the person leading the so-called independent inquiry was also discovered after eight months to be a member of Common Purpose!

Once again, my grateful thanks for your assistance so far.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Brighton

= = = = = =

20/04/2009

Dear Gary Shipsey,

Thank you for this reply – good to see such teamwork !

As you may have have seen throughout these exchanges, we have each tried to be as helpful as possible.

Perhaps it would be helpful to add a little context and perspective here.

Common Purpose is a Charity. The Charity Commission promotes and requires that Charities operate a policy of openness and transparency, at all times demonstrating their accountability. In follows therefore that there should never be any redaction of any details of documents relating to Common Purpose, whether invoices, e-mails, or anything. There is no place for secrecy within a Charity.

Even a cursory check around the Internet shows that the number of organisations, local authorities and institutions that are holding out against declaring membership or association with Common Purpose are becoming the increasingly isolated minority, especially among those that are funded by the public purse. The precedent having been set, what is the point of further secrecy?

A third point considers the Common Purpose graduates, officers, members and associates. Is association with a registered charity to be considered so shameful an act that people are afraid to declare their interest? Such is for themselves to decide. For the taxpayer, such secrecy rings loud alarms of a sinister cult undermining justice, democracy and the law at the taxpayers’ expense.

The public interest case for disclosure is therefore compelling.

In my earlier e-mail I referred to a decision of the Information Commissioner from September 2008. For the sake of completeness, I shall reproduce the source of that reference:

“The Information Commissioner has just issued an enforcement notice against the Department for Communities and Local Government. This instructs the DCLG to release more material in response to an individual’s data protection request for information held about themselves, including the identities of the officials who have expressed opinions about the individual.

The Commissioner says: ‘it is reasonable in the circumstances to release third party information without the consent of the individuals because they were acting in a professional rather than a private capacity’.

I don’t normally venture into data protection matters, but this is interesting and important from the FOI viewpoint too.

Public authorities often try to withhold the identity of officials who have written documents released under FOI, on the grounds that this is personal information. This runs counter to the Commissioner’s guidance that ‘information which is about someone acting in an official or work capacity should normally be provided’.

This latest decision from the ICO confirms that the same principle applies across data protection and freedom of information. The Information Commissioner Richard Thomas has often argued that it makes sense for him to handle both DP and FOI complaints to ensure consistency and avoid the sort of conflicts that have arisen in other countries which have different commissioners for the two topics. Perhaps this case illustrates the strength of this argument.”

I hope that the above continues to be helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Brighton

= = = = =

From: Martin Brighton brightonmb@gmail.com

To: Gary Shipsey g-shipsey@auditcommission.gov.uk

17 June 2009

Dear Gary Shipsey,

Thank you for your reply to FoI review dated 12 June 2009.

I have now taken advice on how to proceed.

As mentioned to you when we spoke, and as mentioned in an e-mail, this issue shall be best determined by the Information Commissioner.

Meanwhile, taking your letter of 12 June as a guide, there are some additional questions and clarifications requested.

I sent you a quote, with reference, where graduates sign a form that waives their rights to anonymity.

You disagreed with the intent of that form, and said that ” I am satisfied that Common Purpose would seek further consent…”

Unfortunately, you have not produced any evidence to support why you are satisfied that Common Purpose would seek further consent.

Please provide the evidence that supports your view that lead you to be satisfied that Common Purpose would seek further consent. This includes whether or not anyone in your organisation contacted Common Purpose for advice in dealing with the FoI request.

One reason why I gave that reference about Common Purpose having a pre-condition that graduates waive their rights to anonymity is because there is already plenty of evidence that such has not only happened, but is continuing to happen. The evidence is also clear, the graduates have NEVER been approached by Common Purpose, seeking ‘further consent’, before their personal details were released.

Your review paper then applies the basic principles of Data Protection. As this seems to be a reasonable approach, I shall respond in similar vein.

You write:

“Would the disclosure be fair and lawful?

Attendance at training does relate to the employee’s public role.”

If an employee has attended training that relates to their public role, then, as that training is provided by the public purse, the public are entitled to know who has received that training, at what cost, and also have a reasonable expectation that the employer would be able to demonstrate the benefits of that training to the taxpayer.

In this section you also write:

“Officials in senior public roles should expect a greater degree of public scrutiny; for such officials, it could be fair and lawful that details of their attendance at a training programme be made public, but only subject to the further considerations outlined below.”

I will give the advised response to the following sections later, but for now, as you reference senior officials and those earning more than £50,000 per annum:

Please provide the names and Common Purpose training details of all Senior Officials, AND all those employees whose earnings are greater than £50,000 per annum, including regional directors and managers.

You have said that your organisation has no record or means of measuring the benefit of Common Purpose training to the taxpayer. You therefore propose that you do not have to answer, under the terms of the FoIA. It is my understanding that public bodies may not lawfully spend taxpayers’ money unless there is an advantage to the taxpayer. Accordingly, there is the possibility that the Audit Commission is itself acting unlawfully. It appears inconceivable that the Audit Commission would authorise training for its personnel without having in place a feedback system to monitor the benefits of that training. You are therefore invited to reconsider your response on this issue.

Please provide, for each case, the objective evidence demonstrating the benefit of that training in terms of increased professional competence that in turn benefits the taxpayer.

You write:

“These requirements and procedures outline how the Audit Commission maintains independence; it has not been demonstrated why public disclosure of specific names and job titles is necessary to evidence the independence of our staff.”

I intend to argue that public disclosure of Auditors who are Common Purpose graduates is an absolute and self-evident necessity to guarantee the independence of audit, especially when both auditors and auditees are Common Purpose graduates. Without both sides declaring their membership, the integrity of the audit could be compromised without the taxpayer even being aware of any potential conflict of interest.

You write:

“Would disclosure cause unwarranted prejudice?

Some information available from those raising concerns about Common Purpose uses language, and makes allegations, that could cause unwarranted harm to our employees’ reputations, their legitimate expectations of what constitutes an acceptable working environment, as well as their own personal expectations of privacy.”

I have made a simple request, which in no way even hints at inappropriate consequences upon disclosure.

You reference ‘unwarranted harm to our employees’ reputations’ as a reason for not disclosing the names of those who have received Common Purpose training.

Unfortunately, you provide no evidence whatsoever to support these grounds for refusal.

What you do provide is references to internet sites, and quote one which carries what appears to be a derogatory comment about someone who is allegedly a Common Purpose graduate. There is no evidence that it was disclosure of the target’s association with Common Purpose that lead to the unfortunate statement, and in any case has no relevance here.

This reason for refusal is not a legitimate reason as defined by the FoIA.

Any person can post any defamatory and libellous material, and we have libel laws to deal with such circumstances.

Citing the possibility that someone might say something derogatory is not a valid reason for refusal to provide the names of those employees of the Audit Commission who have attended Common Purpose training courses.

Consequently, your argument making the distinction between private individuals and public civil servants is invalid.

Your response, helpfully, gave internet references. I looked at those, and also followed their links to further information.

I am aware that: ( cp = Common Purpose )

cp are undergoing a national campaign against anyone who exposes them

cp issue a national template directing organisations how to respond to FoI requests

cp nationally distribute a spreadsheet of illegally gleaned names, accompanied by a libellous cover note, directing organisations not to disclose cp information to them ( criminal )

cp get directly involved with FoI requests, sometimes dealing with them on behalf of the local authorities and institutions – which is also illegal

I have copies of examples of each of the above.

In addition, via the Justice Department, I can confirm that the above have been brought to the attention of the Information Commissioner for prosecution.

Accordingly, it is right that I ask the following:

As part of the process of dealing with this Information Request, did the Audit Commission ever contact Common Purpose?

If so, please provide all details, i.e. e-mails, documents, telephone records etc.

Has my name ever been given to Common Purpose by anyone in your organisation?

If so, please provide all details, i.e. a Subject Access Request applies.

Please be aware that, as any auditor, journalist or detective would do, I do not rely on a single source for information, as your colleague saw when I was provided with inconsistent funding information.

This letter will be forwarded to the Information Commission as part of the document package.

Meanwhile, the information requested above would be most appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Brighton

= = = = = =

21/07/09

Dear Gary,

Thank you very much for this response.

I have not yet approached the Information Commissioner, as I said that I would allow your organisation to respond.

I may provide a more complete reply later, but for now my initial observations are:

- on the naming of graduates: the clause states:

“EXCEPT in connection with the activities described above…”

Indeed, in the past, Common Purpose did publish the names of all graduates – thousands of them. In addition, Common Purpose freely distributed a spreadsheet of all its graduates, sorted by city, throughout the United Kingdom.

On the basis of the documentation, therefore, there can be no objection to disclosing the names and employment positions of those who have attended the Common Purpose training courses.

- on the use of a template letter from Common Purpose

“…requests are inappropriate or vexatious…”

As a stock answer from Common Purpose, I am being associated with having made an inappropriate or vexatious request.

I am not a part of the organisation to which Common Purpose refer, and I hope that, during these patient months of exchanges between ourselves, you have never perceived my actions or my requests as inappropriate or vexatious. There has never been the slightest hint of using the FoIA to cause disruption to either Common Purpose or yourselves.

I am little bit peeved with Common Purpose for sending out such a template reply, and branding me, by association, with those whom Common Purpose may have grievance. However, as you have not disclosed my name to Common Purpose ( so, therefore, how can they justify such a response if they don’t know who I am? ) there can be no libel in this instance, for which I thank you for your discretion.

I must point out here that I have been made aware on several occasions that Common Purpose, upon learning of an FoIA request about them to an authority or institution, unlawfully glean the requester’s personal details, enter this on a spreadhseet, then illegally nationally distribute this spreadsheet ( i.e. ‘blacklist’ ) to all associated authorities and institutions, with a cover-note as equally defamatory as the one you have kindly copied back to me, and a request that should any of the names contect the organisations, then Common Purpose are to be informed.

- on the statement from Common Purpose about disclosing details of graudate training, the phrase ‘we tend to ask again as a matter of courtesy’ actually has no relevence, as disclosures were made without reference back to the graduate. The weakness is in the statement, ‘we tend’, which has no authority, and was not done in the past.

The position therefore remains, that whilst we may still agree to differ, we have remained civil at all times, and are amenable to asking the Information Commissioner for an opinion.

On 17 June, my attachment included:

“In this section you also write:

“Officials in senior public roles should expect a greater degree of public scrutiny; for such officials, it could be fair and lawful that details of their attendance at a training programme be made public, but only subject to the further considerations outlined below.”

I will give the advised response to the following sections later, but for now, as you reference senior officials and those earning more than £50,000 per annum:

Please provide the names and Common Purpose training details of all Senior Officials, AND all those employees whose earnings are greater than £50,000 per annum, including regional directors and managers.”

Your reply did not include the details above. On 2 June Common Purpose said that disclosure of the above was up to yourselves, and it appears that you have agreed to release the details of those that you described above.

Perhaps it was an oversight.

I am still of the opinion that Common Purpose training does not confer any advantage to the taxpayer or ratepayer, but this argument is for another forum.

I believe it would be fair, right and proper to allow you the time to produce that list.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Brighton

= = = = =

27/07/09

Dear Gary Shipsey,

It would appear that the increasing national prevalence for institutions to demonstrate transparency and admit to which of their employees are Common Purpose graduates could place the audit commission among the minority.

I have every confidence that the audit commission does not want to be perceived as a secretive organisation.

If the BBC can disclose such details, there is absolutely nothing to stop the audit commission from doing likewise.

Best Regards

martin

= = = = =

23/08/09

Dear Gary Shipsey,

This email serves as an update, a reminder, and an extension.

1. The promised material is now late, as it should have been received by 21 August. I had expected by now the promised details of CP trained personnel who are senior managers and those whose salaries are in excess of 50k pa. In the interim, you have been sent a note showing how the BBC had decided to publish all relevant details of all BBC personnel who had received CP training.

As the precedent has been set, there is no reason whatsoever why the audit commission cannot follow suit.

2. I said that I would be going to the Information Commissioners Office about this case. This I have now done, and have been assigned a caseworker. This letter and all other material will form part of the datapack.

3. I have taken advice about the way in which the Audit Commission has dealt with this case, and its communication with Common Purpose.

The argument put forward against disclosure has been described as The Vicky Pollard Defence, i.e. We will not give you information because Joe Smith does not like Fred Blogs.

The request for information can only be based upon the request to the requestee, not upon the unsupported opinion of a third party who might be having difficulties with another organisation that is not associated with the requester, the request or the requestee. In any case, the argument put forward by Common Purpose has absolutely no relevance whatsoever with this case, and is based upon speculative consequences, in turn based upon a false if not telepathic assumption of the intent of a requester.

4. As part of the advice you received from Common Purpose, which in any case has no legitimate bearing, or any influence, interest or even control over this case, Common Purpose referenced a document that they had sent to the Information Commissioner, with a copy sent to yourselves. It is proposed that Common Purpose are attempting to exert an influence beyond their lawful authority. As this document informed your decision, would you please send this document, suitably redacted.

5. It has also been brought to my attention that your personnel serving South Yorkshire are also graduates of Common Purpose. Public records show the audit commission personnel attending meetings with Common Purpose graduates who are also senior officers of a local authority. The records also show that there were no declarations of interest. This would not be serious were it not for the fact that the agenda item discussed a forthcoming corruption case which the audit commission was to become involved with in an audit capacity, with a crude direction from the senior officer on what the outcome of that audit was to be. It is therefore a matter of public record that the integrity of the external audit function has been seriously compromised.

6. It has been confirmed that Common Purpose corporate sponsors, such as local authorities and institutions, have received a spreadsheet containing the personal details of thousands of its graduates. This spreadsheet contained the name, employer, position, and course undertaken of these graduates. Therefore, the argument that Common Purpose would tend to ask for prior permission for publication of their details can be disregarded in its entirety with respect to the futile attempt at negating the disclaimer that all graduates must sign before being allowed on its courses. Accordingly, there is no barrier whatsoever to providing the information required.

7. Finally, therefore, it would be appropriate to receive, by return, the following:

7.1. The names and Common Purpose training details of all Senior Officials, AND all those employees whose earnings are greater than 50,000 per annum, including regional directors and managers.

7.2 In keeping with what others have done, the details of ALL audit commission employees who have undertaken Common Purpose training.

7.3 A suitably redacted copy of the letter that Common Purpose say they have sent to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Brighton

= = = = =

31/08/09

Dear Sue Sunderland,

I am currently preparing for this year’s open session for the Sheffield City Council Annual Accounts.

During the past year there have been continuing issues with the organisation Common Purpose. You may recall that this, for me, is a recently discovered organisation. However, it is cropping up in several places within the council and its partners, and always in positions of power.

Recently, there has been a problem with reconciling the council’s often-repeated principles of openness, transparency, honesty and accountability, and the Common Purpose principles of secrecy, for example, meetings held under Chatham House rules.

Last year I sent to you a few examples of where agenda items of council business, including financial, were being discussed, and binding decisions taken, among council officers and other networked Common Purpose ‘graduates’ at their Advisory Board meetings, and at events which included promotion of Common Purpose ‘products’ such as networking events, seminars, or contracted services to young people such as those determined by Common Purpose as having potential as future leaders and so targeted for ‘training’.

You decided last year that for the amounts of money involved, it would not be cost-effective to extend the scope of your audit.

This secrecy of Common Purpose has brought into question the serious and genuine concern that there should be declarations of interest if the audit function is carried out by Common Purpose ‘graduates’ who are the auditor upon Common Purpose ‘graduates’ of the auditee.

The fundamental principle of independence of audit is severely compromised when there is no declaration by either party, such that the ratepayer has no notion of any associations between auditor and auditee. To make matters worse, as has been seen in what little is recorded by Common Purpose, the subject matter of an audit may also have been discussed prior to audit among the Common Purpose ‘graduates’ who may well have included both auditor and auditee.

Sheffield City Council have also, to date ( although this shall change ) have not volunteered the names of the Common Purpose graduates, although some individuals have admitted to being so when they interfered with the free flow of information and attempted to exert their power beyond their legal authority.

Having explained the background and rationale, I shall come straight out and ask the question behind writing to you:

Are you, or any of your local staff, who serve, for example, the South Yorkshire region, in any way associated with Common Purpose, whether as ‘graduates’ who have attended courses, or actively involved with any Common Purpose project?

It would be helpful if you could identify such persons, and their position within your organisation.

Thank you for your help.

Yours sincerely,

= = = = =

= = = = =

02/09/09

Dear Mr Brighton

This is just to inform you that I am no longer the auditor of Sheffield City Council. As you are aware we rotate auditors on a regular basis and I have therefore moved out of South Yorkshire into Derbyshire.

Sheffield City Council’s new auditor is John Prentice and I have copied your correspondence to him.

Yours sincerely

Sue Sunderland

= = = = =

= = = = =

02/09/09

To Sue,

Dear Sue Sunderland,

Thank you for this reply.

I was not aware that auditors were rotated.

Are you associated with Common Purpose in any way, either as a ‘graduate’, i.e. have attended any of their courses, or ever been involved with any Common Purpose activities?

Best Regards,

= = = = =

= = = = =

= = = = =

03/09/09

RE: Integrity of Independence of Audit

03/09/2009

Mr Brighton,

As Sue Sunderland has indicated I am now the DA for Sheffield City Council.

As part of our audit, we are required to comply with ethical standards. On the matter you raise, ES1 on integrity, objectivity and independence is applicable. To comply with ES1, all permanent and temporary staff of the Audit Commission are required to declare any potential and actual conflicts of interest, including at least an annual declaration. Following your e-mail, I have confirmed that no members of my Sheffield audit team have had any involvement with Common Purpose.

I personally have received two or three invitations from Common Purpose in previous years (none recently) but I have never attended any of their meetings. This is the only contact I have ever received and I have had no other involvement with them.

I trust this answers the question you raised in your e-mail.

Regards

John Prentice

= = = = =

= = = = =

03/09/09

Dear John Prentice,

Thank you very much for your prompt and reassuring response.

I note from the financial records of the audit commission that £4845.25 was spent on Common Purpose training in the year 2005 / 06 for one member serving the ‘South Yorkshire Region’. via the Leeds office . Has this person ever been a member of the Sheffield audit team?

Regards

Martin Brighton

= = = = =

= = = = =

08/09/09

Mr Brighton,

The information you requested is not held by me but is held centrally by the Audit Commission. As you are aware from your previous Freedom of Information request, I cannot disclose details relating to an individual. However, I have obtained specific details regarding the invoice to which you refer and I can confirm that this person has never been a member of the Sheffield audit team.

Any requests for information relating to the Audit Commission should be sent to them at foi@audit-commission.gov.uk

Regards

John Prentice

= = = = =

= = = = =

08/09/09

Dear John Prentice,

Thank you very much for this, it is very reassuring to know.

I have some questions and would like to see some documents relating to the open inspection period of the SCC Annual Accounts. The issues involve Common Purpose.

I shall be making my enquiries via the SCC Finance Department.

Regards

martin

= = = = =

23/09/09

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

Yes, you are quite correct.

As the letter that was sent to the Information Commissioner’s Office was used in consideration of your response to my FoI request, then I am entitled to a copy of that letter, suitably redacted of course.

Please also consider:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/public_authority_staff_info_v2.0_final.pdf

It correctly points out :-

• In general, more senior staff and those carrying out public functions should expect more information about them to be disclosed.

I would therefore have reasonably expected that the Audit Commission would have identified to me those senior staff who have attended Common Purpose courses, along the lines detailed by yourself in a previous email.

I look forward to a copy of the letter and the names.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Brighton

= = = = =

23/09/09

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

Thank you for your reply.

I’m sorry if I’m not being very clear.

I am not saying that the letter is my personal information, only that I am entitled to a copy of the letter as it was used in this case which concerns me, as it was considered before replying to my freedom of information request.

The processing of information requests is requester-blind, and whether or not there is subsequent disclosure is not a consideration under FoIA. If the letter was used in processing my FoI request, then I am entitled to a copy of that letter that Common Purpose sent to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

But one consequence of allowing the letter to remain secret is that it negates the spirit of the FoIA in that it would become permissable to refuse to provide information on the grounds of information that is kept secret. The Information Commissioner would never permit such abuse of the FoIA.

You mention the word ‘complaint’. I do not seek to ‘complain’ about the Audit Commission, and I hope that I have made this clear, as each side has politely made their respective cases. All I am asking is that the Information Commissioner make a decision on which of the arguments has precedence.

Once again, my thanks.

= = = = =

30/09/09

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

I have taken professional advice concerning the letter that you used in making your decision not to provide the names of those who have undertaken Common Purpose courses.

I refer to the letter that you say that Common Purpose allegedly sent to the Information Commissioner.

I will try to summarise and paraphrase the advice given.

“It is ludicrous, unreasonable and irrational, if not downright illegal, to refuse a FoI request on the grounds of a secret document by a secret author, and not disclosing that document or its contents to the requester. The law is clear in this regard, the requestee, if refusing a FoI request, must produce the evidence to justify that decision. Otherwise, we could have the excuse of refusals on the grounds of secret documents for every FoI request, which runs counter to both the wording and spirit of the FoIA. ” I am not going to give you what you are entitled to receive because John says he does not like Mary” – The argument is specious and irrelevant, the classic TV Vicky Pollard defence of Little Britain .”

In addition, Common Purpose is a registered Charity, and as such has to be seen to be open, honest and transparent. Sending out secret letters to third parties, which have in their turn been sent to other third parties, who then use them as devices to frustrate the law, is not the behaviour expected of a Charity. There is no place for such secrecy. Common Purpose must be deeply ashamed of what they done, or have something very serious to hide, if they are not openly willing to provide their side of the argument.

Importantly, the requestee, in this case yourselves, having used the letter as a reason for refusal, has a statutory duty to explain why that letter was applicable to this FoI request, and, if any assumptions or extensions to the argument for refusal are made, the supporting evidence. This requires the provision of that letter.

All we have so far is the alleged existence of a secret letter from a third party, which by rights had no place to be involved at all, and for which the requester is currently not allowed to see either the letter itself, or where the contents of that letter apply to this case. It is a case of the third party, Common Purpose, imposing its influence and control beyond its legal authority.

Therefore, I hope I can now expect that you send me the letter by return.

It would also be helpful if you could provide me the contact details of your organisation’s sponsoring government department.

= = = = =

10/02/10

Dear Alan,

In keeping with the previous email, here is the latest to John Mothersole.

The theme remains the same – the council will never provide any information that would show that the consultation process ‘is a sham’ ( not my phrase ).

From both the last Cabinet meeting of 27 January and the last Full Council of 3 February, you will have heard the repeated claims concerning both Community Assemblies and Sheffield Homes that the decisions were made by citizens and tenants. These claims are absolutely not true.

With respect to Sheffield Homes, Peter Morton repeatedly made it clear that the choices by tenants were only to be used as indicators of opinion to feed into the decision-making process of the council. He stressed, these were ‘not to be regarded as decisions’. He was virtually forced into this position at a city-wide ‘consultation’ event because tenants complained that the questions being asked were loaded, they were not provided the background information, and some presumed a position that did not exist.

regards

martin

= = = = =

11/02/10

copy email to a-brownson@audit-commission.gov.uk

= = = = =

12/02/10

Dear John,

On 5 February I wrote:

There are Common Purpose graduates within the Audit Commission, and your Head Office has its own protocols for this ( declaration, self-recusement, etc ).

NOTE: It is NOT being proposed that ALL CP graduates are associated with anything unlawful.

So I must now ask the question, are you in any way associated with Common Purpose?

regards

= = = = =

17/02/10

Dear Alan,

There are references in the two attachments to Sheffield Homes, Levy money accounts, alleged consultation and empowerment.

They are public domain documents, so may be freely used.

Meanwhile, so as to avoid any duplication, would it be possible to have a copy of any reports you have issued to date about the above topics?

Feel free to ask for anything.

regards

= = = = =

18/02/10

Dear Alan,

These attachments should more or less bring you up to date.

Please feel free to get in touch if there are any queries.

regards

martin

= = = = =

= = = = =

01/04/10

Dear Mr Brighton,

Thank you for your email.

The appointed auditor for Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (WMBC) is Mike Thomas and his email address is m-thomas@audit-commission.gov.uk.

The Comprehensive Area Assessment Lead (CAAL) for WMBC is Mrs Val Edmonds and her email address is v-edmonds@audit-commission.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,

Dan Allbon

= = = = =

= = = = =

03/04/10

Dear Shaun,

I have recently come accross this entry for a Common Purpose course:

manchester Sunderland Susan suesunderland@hotmail.com Greater Manchester 2000/01 Greater Manchester Matrix

Could you please confirm whether or not the Sue Sunderland referenced here is the same Sue Sunderland that worked for the Audit Commission serving the South Yorkshire area?

Best regards

= = = = =

28/04/10

Dear Shaun,

Thank you for this. Your prompt reply is much appreciated.

No, I am not disappointed, I don’t ‘do’ disappointment.

However, I would like the Audit Commission to review the decision not to process the FoIA request.

After receiving your email, I decided to try the email address ‘suesunderland’.

It was returned as no longer existing.

This means that:

Section 40(5)(b)(i) FoIA – Personal Data

cannot be engaged as a legitimate reason for refusing to provide the information requested.

The statement:

“In this case, confirming whether the individual had ever worked for or on behalf of the Audit Commission would require the confirmation of an individual’s personal email address.”

therefore does not apply.

The issue here is actually nothing to do with the email address of Sue Sunderland, whether personal or otherwise. The information requested is as stated in the original request:

‘I have recently come across this entry for a Common Purpose course:

manchester Sunderland Susan suesunderland@hotmail.com Greater Manchester 2000/01 Greater Manchester Matrix

Could you please confirm whether or not the Sue Sunderland referenced here is the same Sue Sunderland that worked for the Audit Commission serving the South Yorkshire area?’

Accordingly, I look forward to the confirmation requested.

Best Regards

Martin

= = = = =

= = = = =

12/05/10

Mr Brighton,

The area assessment and organisational assessment for Sheffield were compiled by a team led by John Casey, Comprehensive Area Assessment Lead for South Yorkshire, who is responsible for this work at all four MDCs in South Yorkshire. I have discussed your e-mail with him and can confirm that there were no Common Purpose graduates involved with the audit.

For complete clarity on this matter, John Casey has attended one event held by Common Purpose which was in 2008 but he has had no further contact since then.

Regards

John Prentice

DA for Sheffield MDC

= = = = =

= = = = =

13/05/10

Dear Robert Mauler,

Thank you for this reply. Thanks also for your promptness, which is much appreciated.

Thank you also for volunteering some information.

I shall reciprocate here.

Usually, FoIA requests are deemed to be ‘purpose blind’.

For this reason, I did not give any background to my request.

I shall do so now.

The reason why I made the request was not because of the reference to the email but because of the reference to the organisation Common Purpose. The email is an inconsequence. ( and is anyway defunct. )

Rather than go direct to the Information Commissioner, I beleive that it would be helpful if you could reconsider your response in the light of this, perhaps better worded question:

Could you please confirm if your Sue Sunderland attended the referenced Common Purpose Matrix course in 2000 / 01 ?

I believe that you will agree that this is the better question, and your answer would not give rise to even the possibility of any DPA issues.

Yours sincerely,

= = = = =

= = = = =

17/06/10

Dear Mr Brighton

I am writing in response to your below request.

After discussions with the individual and after reviewing some recent Information Commissioner decisions, I can confirm that an employee of the Audit Commission, Sue Sunderland, did attended the Common Purpose course in question.

I hope you find this information helpful. However, if you are not happy with this response, or the way that we have dealt with it, we have a specific complaints process, which is attached. If you have any queries or concerns about that, please contact our Public Enquiries team on 0844 798 3131

Yours sincerely

Shaun Kavanagh

Public Enquiries Officer

= = = = =

= = = = =

17/06/10

Dear Shaun,

Thank you very much for this reply.

There is, of course, a consequence to this.

I shall respond more fully in due course, and try to be as helpful as I can.

Best Regards

= = = = =

21/06/10

Copy of letter to Mr. Eccleston of SCC sent to Shaun

= = = = =

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freemasonry#incoming-83183

Sheila Oliver

21 April 2010

Dear Audit Commission,

Is there any written requirement for District Auditors to declare

if they are Freemasons?

Yours faithfully,

Sheila

Dear Sheila

Thank you for your email dated 21 April 2010.

There is a written requirement for all Commission employees to declare

if they are ‘Freemasons’.

Paragraph 16.19 of the Commission’s Code of Conduct states:

‘You must inform your manager if you are a member of an organisation

that is not open to the public, which has a commitment to allegiance

(oaths) and secrecy about its rules, membership and conduct, for example

Freemasons.’

The Commission’s Code of Conduct is attached for your information.

I hope you find this information helpful. However if you are unhappy

with this response, or the way your request has been handled, you can

raise a complaint under the Audit Commission’s Access to Information

Complaint and Appeal Procedure. Please find a copy attached.

Yours sincerely

Shaun Kavanagh

Public Enquiries Officer

part of the Chief Executive’s Office

* Audit Commission

Westward House

Lime Kiln Close

Stoke Gifford

Bristol

BS34 8SR

* 0844 798 7961

* 07967 565735

* [email address]

i For Freedom of Information (FOI) requests please email

[Audit Commission request email]

Sheila Oliver

28 April 2010

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thank you for your kind and prompt response. That is very helpful.

I couldn’t open either of the links but the paragraph you quote is,

I think, all I need.

Would I as a member of the public be allowed to know if anyone in

particular at the Audit Commission had made such a declaration?

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

238 Lupton Road

Sheffield S8 7NJ

brightonmb@gmail.com

Sue Sunderland

Audit Commission

Littlemoor House

Littlemoor

Eckington

Sheffield S21 4EE

31 August 2009

Dear Sue Sunderland,

I am currently preparing for this year’s open session for the Sheffield City Council Annual Accounts.

During the past year there have been continuing issues with the organisation Common Purpose. You may recall that this, for me, is a recently discovered organisation. However, it is cropping up in several places within the council and its partners, and always in positions of power.

Recently, there has been a problem with reconciling the council’s often-repeated principles of openness, transparency, honesty and accountability, and the Common Purpose principles of secrecy, for example, meetings held under Chatham House rules.

Last year I sent to you a few examples of where agenda items of council business, including financial, were being discussed, and binding decisions taken, among council officers and other networked Common Purpose ‘graduates’ at their Advisory Board meetings, and at events which included promotion of Common Purpose ‘products’ such as networking events, seminars, or contracted services to young people such as those determined by Common Purpose as having potential as future leaders and so targeted for ‘training’.

You decided last year that for the amounts of money involved, it would not be cost-effective to extend the scope of your audit.

This secrecy of Common Purpose has brought into question the serious and genuine concern that there should be declarations of interest if the audit function is carried out by Common Purpose ‘graduates’ who are the auditor upon Common Purpose ‘graduates’ of the auditee.

The fundamental principle of independence of audit is severely compromised when there is no declaration by either party, such that the ratepayer has no notion of any associations between auditor and auditee. To make matters worse, as has been seen in what little is recorded by Common Purpose, the subject matter of an audit may also have been discussed prior to audit among the Common Purpose ‘graduates’ who may well have included both auditor and auditee.

Sheffield City Council have also, to date ( although this shall change ) have not volunteered the names of the Common Purpose graduates, although some individuals have admitted to being so when they interfered with the free flow of information and attempted to exert their power beyond their legal authority.

Having explained the background and rationale, I shall come straight out and ask the question behind writing to you:

Are you, or any of your local staff, who serve, for example, the South Yorkshire region, in any way associated with Common Purpose, whether as ‘graduates’ who have attended courses, or actively involved with any Common Purpose project?

It would be helpful if you could identify such persons, and their position within your organisation.

Thank you for your help.

Yours sincerely,

by email

Martin Brighton

To: Shaun Kavanagh, s-kavanagh@audit-commission.gov.uk

From: Martin Brighton, Sheffield 28 June 2010

Conclusion

1 The Audit Commission has abrogated its reason to exist. The disestablishment of the Audit Commission has become urgent and compelling. In its current form, and under current conditions, it is an unnecessary administrative burden that achieves the opposite of its alleged purpose. There is no longer any reason to trust either the findings of the Audit Commission or the integrity of its audits.

2 Rather than being the impartial and independent auditor, the Audit Commission is the sycophantic apologist, gatekeeper, shield and laundryman that not only fails to uncover what is wrong, but colludes in a cover-up whilst ensuring that what is wrong continues unabated so as to ensure the imposition of a pre-set agenda.

3 All audits carried out by the Audit Commission in this region since 2005 are to be struck down.

Introduction

4 For several years the Audit Commission has received objective evidence of fraud and corruption in Sheffield. The Audit Commission, during the whole time, has done nothing effectively to further expose or remedy the corruption.

5 This letter to the Audit Commission was triggered by the recent audit report of June 2010 concerning Sheffield Homes. The conclusions of the report are unreasonable, irrational, illogical, unlawful and perverse. Furthermore, this situation has been demonstrated to exist since at least 2005, consistent with the exposure of the absolute corruption of Sheffield City Council over the preceding seven years. During those preceding seven years it was determined that Sheffield Homes itself was fraudulently brought into being.

6 Whilst this letter is free-standing, it is accompanied by an extract from a sample of communications with the Audit Commission over the past five years. The Audit Commission has received all supporting documents.

Declarations of Interest

7 It is integral to the demonstration of integrity that Declarations of Interest, followed by self-recusement, are engaged whenever such failure could compromise the confidence placed on the outcomes of an audit.

8 The Audit Commission has demonstrated that not only does it not uphold this principle, it has shown consistently that it has no intention to do so. The Audit Commission has flagrantly broken its own rules, and has refused to comply with its own policies or the law, even when specifically invited to do so.

9 At least for Sheffield, and as can be applied nationally, the failure to make Declarations of Interest has fatally flawed the integrity of the audit process, and therefore the results of those audits cannot be trusted.

10 In Sheffield and the region, and in principle nationally, the activities of the Audit Commission touched upon, but are not limited to, the following organisations:

11 Sheffield City Council, Sheffield Homes, Sheffield First, New Deal, Local Strategic Partnerships, Regional Development Agencies, Regeneration Departments ( as were ), Voluntary Action Services, Neighbourhood Commissions, Community Fora, Tenants and Residents Associations and local Housing Associations.

12 There are many threads that link all these organisations, and many others too. These threads, and one in particular, includes the Audit Commission. There has been the ever-present influence of the micro-manager, the institutionally corrupt nulabor government. There has also been another organisation that has infiltrated all governance tiers, targeting leaders and teaching how to lead beyond authority.

13 This organisation has a policy of secrecy. Its people make decisions that bypass democracy, is burdensome upon the taxpayer and places its alumni strategically for its own benefit. It binds its supporters to loyalty above that due to their employers or the law.

14 This aggressively commercial organisation, which is expensive to the taxpayer, is enthusiastically supported by the Audit Commission. By the rules of the Audit Commission itself, and with Disciplinary action for failure, association with this third party must be disclosed.

15 This organisation is called Common Purpose.

This presentation is not a diatribe against Common Purpose.

This is merely a statement of fact concerning an organisation.

It would make no difference if the organisation were the Mickey Mouse Club.

16 Common Purpose has had a direct national economic impact of over a hundred million pounds upon the taxpayer since 1997. None of this has been of any benefit to the taxpayer. This impact is massively more when taking into consideration the influence within organisations that it infiltrated.

17 All of the organisations above mentioned above have their Common Purpose alumni ( graduates ). These alumni, during the normal course of their business, will have meetings yet never make a Declaration of Interest that would show they have held private meetings within Common Purpose, such as at Advisory Board meetings, or that they communicate through Common Purpose. This failure to Declare includes when Common Purpose products and services are promoted, however succinctly. This practice includes the Audit Commission itself.

18 The systematic failure of the Audit Commission to abide by the law, or even its own rules, with respect to Declarations of Interest, means that no local audit carried out by the Audit Commission can be trusted.

19 This situation shall remain until such time that the Audit Commission makes full, open, honest and transparent disclosure of all its Common Purpose alumni ( graduates ), sponsors and supporters. This shall include full, auditable details of all the activities involved with Common Purpose, including minutes of meetings and all communications.

20 Any attempt to claim that such activities are private can be disregarded in their entirety. Their activities are carried out in taxpayer time, and their ‘training’ is also paid for by the taxpayer. The only winner is Common Purpose itself.

21 Of course, the same principles above also apply to the other auditing organisation, KPMG, which has demonstrated similar traits, on a national basis, since around 1998.

South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit

22 This concerns the comparatively inconsequential alleged loss of around £14million of ratepayers’ money resulting from fraud and corruption for nearly a decade. The case is, in principle, very simple. The Serious Fraud Office recently prosecuted. This prosecution only identified a few hundred thousand pounds of the allegedly lost money.

23 Where is the rest of the money? If it was purely virtual money created through cheating the accounts, the books could be corrected. No, according to the council and the Audit Commission, this was real money, which must be replaced pro-rata by the ratepayers in the other towns in South Yorkshire.

24 Why did neither the Audit Commission, nor KPMG during its tenure, ever detect the structural flaws in the internal audit processes that received vast sums of taxpayers’ money, in turn ostensibly to detect the alleged fraud and corruption, but failed to do so for a decade? ( The same in principle could be said of Burngreave New Deal, a small matter of over £50 million. )

25 For over four years, as the Audit Commission is aware, this citizen has been asking in vain for the details that prove the allegations that £14million has been lost. The Audit Commission has written claiming it has seen this evidence.

26 It is a criminal offence to deny a citizen access to information to which that citizen has a statutory right of access. It is not necessary here to quote the applicable laws. The point here is that the Audit Commission are allowing this to continue, thus colluding in the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

27 Unless and until all the facts concerning the South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit made public the Audit Commission is exposed to a potential criminal prosecution.

28 It is a matter of public record that, during council meetings at which the Audit Commission was present, both were alumni of Common Purpose, and the council Common Purpose graduate had primacy, in terms of Common Purpose, over the Audit Commission graduate. Furthermore, the council graduate made it clear that no corruption would be found within the council.

Sheffield Homes / Sheffield City Council

Consultation / Devolution of Democracy

28 This is but one of the issues at the core of the fraud and corruption that is absolute, lead from the top down, and out of control.

29 Successfully creating the illusion of meaningful engagement, consultation and consent leads to rewards of literally hundreds of millions of pounds.

30 The Audit Commission has been provided with the evidence showing how the structures set up to access the funds were deliberately contrived to deceive. The Audit Commission has done nothing.

31 The fraudulent claims of consent, falsely ascribed to groups created solely as a top-down device to falsely claim representation, in turn to facilitate fraudulent access to vast sums of money, have been detailed to the Audit Commission.

32 Such groups needed place-shaping, with the strategic placement of puppet leaders who would be taught to lead beyond their authority. Such chosen people also needed a network in which to operate outside of the purview of the ordinary citizen.

33 The Audit Commission is an intrinsic and willing member of this secretive network.

34 The organisation Common Purpose is but one of nulabor’s social change agents that is being used to deceive the citizen. Its influence can be seen throughout the council, its housing management agent ( Sheffield Homes ) and at all tiers from policy framing to street control. In return, Common Purpose is enriched, and its alumni personally benefit, at the expense of the taxpayer.

35 The recent report of the Audit Commission concerning Sheffield Homes, June 2010, is the most inaccurate and offensive in years of similar mis-statements.

36 The Audit Commission has been provided with all the evidence demonstrating that the claims of Sheffield Homes and Sheffield City Council were bogus. Throughout this time, the Audit Commission did nothing, so this state of affairs continues.

37 In this way, the Audit Commission is demonstrating, not least by its enthusiastic support for the ‘other network’ of which it is itself a part, that the Audit Commission is also a part of the fraud and corruption that is being exposed.

38 Another aspect of the corruption, about which the Audit Commission has also done nothing, is what happens to those who would expose the corruption, or even pose a perceived threat to the imposition of the pre-set agenda.

39 The Audit Commission has learned of the years of systematic abuses of, for example, this citizen. Meanwhile, it was only relatively discovered that the worst of the abuses came from those associated with, and supported if not controlled by, the alumni of Common Purpose.

40 Still, the Audit Commission continues to issue reports that, if it had impartially consulted the evidence, it would have known were totally wrong.

41 It is no wonder that Sheffield Homes has effectively banned this citizen from taking part in city-wide consultation events !

Demonstrating Financial Probity

42 The Audit Commission, from the outset, were informed of the failures of Sheffield City Council to comply with the law and provide the financial information due to a ratepayer.

43 The Audit Commission was shown how the council repeatedly lied, obfuscated and refused to provide invoices relating to Common Purpose.

44 The Audit Commission were made aware that the council had admitted that it could not comply with its statutory duty to demonstrate the benefit of expenditure on Common Purpose to the ratepayer.

45 In addition, insider dealing was determined.

46 Common Purpose continues to unlawfully expand its commercial interests within the council, all at the expense of the ratepayer, who receives no benefit. Yet still the Audit Commission does nothing.

47 The question had to be asked. Why is the Audit Commission doing nothing? Was the Audit Commission itself in any way associated with Common Purpose?

48 The local office of the Audit Commission was specifically asked whether the Audit Commissioner, or any of the Audit Team, were themselves associated with Common Purpose. The reply to this question was obfuscation and diversion, effectively a denial.

49 Much later, and purely by chance, a document was uncovered showing that the local Audit Commissioner was a graduate of Common Purpose. The significance of such a document was staggering.

50 The Audit Commission was asked to clarify this document. The Audit Commission at first refused to do so. When the Freedom of Information Act was invoked, the Audit Commission reviewed their earlier decision and conceded that the Common Purpose document did identify the local Audit Commissioner.

51 What was worse that the concession about the document was the realisation that throughout the whole time that this citizen was providing objective evidence of criminal financial dealings between Common Purpose and Sheffield Council, unknown to this citizen, the Audit Commission itself was associated with Common Purpose.

52 At no time, then or since, did the Audit Commission ever volunteer this information, make Declarations of Interest, or recuse themselves.

53 The consequences are inescapable. By the inaction of the Audit Commission, the Audit Commission has become a willing accomplice in the cover-up of fraud and corruption.

54 By virtue of its association with Common Purpose, the Audit Commission has actively and deliberately failed to ensure that the probity of the council’s financial systems were beyond reproach.

55 In turn, every annual audit upon the council, or project audit such as upon Sheffield Homes, have no authority or legitimacy, and so must be struck down.

56 The Audit Commission must now provide this citizen all the information required to lawfully respond to the original Freedom of Information Request concerning the involvement of the Audit Commission with Common Purpose and provide all unredacted invoices. These should also include who first promoted the candidate, and who authorised the payment.

What Is Happening Now?

57 The local council and Sheffield Homes continue to refuse to comply with the Local Government Act, the Audit Commission Act and the Freedom of Information Act, with respect to Common Purpose. ( In fact, such contempt for the law, knowing that no organisation with purview will ever do anything, has become ubiquitous. )

58 Common Purpose continues to recruit and operate within the council, and is now rolling out the Your Turn products. Attempts to obtain details have been similarly frustrated, and have resulted in much public and ongoing abuse of this citizen from November 2008.

59 The above is all done unlawfully, and with confidence, in the knowledge that the Audit Commission has not one, but two blind eyes.

60 It has also been shown how, in nearby Rotherham and Leeds, ‘bungs’ of £10,000 have been paid to Common Purpose. In these cases we can thank the equally blind local KPMG for allowing this to continue.

61 Why should the Audit Commission do anything about the unlawful secrecy and insider dealing? Its loyalty is to the separate network operating outside of the democratic mechanisms and the law.

62 Common Purpose graduates within the council, especially the Executive, continue to obfuscate and break the law with respect to the secrecy of Common Purpose practices and finances.

63 Whilst ever Common Purpose remains entrenched in controlling positions within the Executive of a council, or any groups over which the council has purview, or within any local or national organisation with purview over councils, such as the police, there can never be any possibility of financial probity, and no possibility of prosecutions.

64 In fact, the influence of Common Purpose within the local police force(s) is particularly worrying, as it gives so many a clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous signal, that there is an open charter for corruption. As long as the glue that binds these people and organisations holds, they are safe from prosecution. But if the glue becomes unstuck…if one falls, they all fall.

65 The Audit Commission does nothing.

The Audit Commission has abrogated its right to exist.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Brighton