Posted by: Witch Doctor | August 25, 2009

WD Apology (19) Government funding of Common Purpose

witchyounground

South Africa.

My Black Cat and I have established, using Grade A1 and A2 criteria only, that without a doubt there is a close intertwinglement between Common Purpose and The Media Standard’s Trust.

We have evidence also using A1 and A2 criteria that through Julia Middleton, there is a strong intertwinglement between Common Purpose and the Think Tank Demos, and by extrapolation a possible intertwinglement with politicians who participate in the activities of this Think Tank.

A reader has noticed that Common Purpose seems very active in South Africa.

My Black Cat noticed this too and she became very excited to find there was Grade A2 evidence of an intertwinglement between the South African Branch of Common Purpose and the UK Government.

MoneyBusiness

On The South African Common Purpose Website there is a heading “Independent Assessment of Common Purpose South Africa.” on the “About us” page.

Who requires the assessment?

The Department of International Development (DFID) – a UK government department.

They gave funds to the African branch of Common Purpose.

So what?

Giving away money is presumably what the DFID is there to do.

It is the “raison d’etre” of this department.

It is nevertheless an intertwinglement of sorts.

“DFID funding was obtained to assist with the start-up of this project in Johannesburg, specifically to fund regular, face-to-face interaction and knowledge transfer between the CEO of Common Purpose SA and the leaders of the project in the United Kingdom. It follows that an evaluation of the success of the project to date is also an evaluation of the successful use of the funding.”

It sounds to me, that the funding was to pay for trips backwards and forwards to South Africa for the purpose of knowledge transfer. That presumably is what “face to face” means, My Black Cat.

If you surf around the Freedom of the World Wide Web, you will be able to find this information for yourself. And if you care to make the effort you might discover something that struck My Black Cat as slightly unusual. But you will need to go to the bother of reading the assessment or it will pass you by.

However I need to warn you.

The evidence may have disappeared by the time you look!

Sometimes, as soon as The Witch Doctor finds some interesting A2 evidence, it disappears as if by magic.

My Black Cat is of the opinion that someone from Common Purpose might be reading this blog.

I told her not to be ridiculous.

We witches and black cats would be considered to be very small fry in The Common Purpose leadership hierarchy.

More soon………

wordpress stats


Web Traffic Stats

cplogo


Responses

  1. Ah, would your cat be referring to the fact that the author of the report, Angela Bull, is a former employee of Common Purpose in South Africa?

    There were one or two other things about the document that frankly just made me giggle, but I’m sure you’re already one step ahead of me.

  2. And on a side-note, I’ve just seen this news story about Wikipedia:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8220220.stm

    More creep, or an honest attempt at trying to keep information reliable?

  3. Yes, Cat Lady, and the other thing that struck us as unusual was that while she was doing her independent report, her progress was monitored by the CEO of CP South Africa. This sounds a bit contradictory although it does not necessarily mean her report was not indeed independent. Just wonder why the point of the CE’s monitoring role is being laboured.

    “Independence of evaluation

    While I was employed by Common Purpose South Africa and my progress monitored by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Julia Thompson, my assessment was both directed and compiled independently of the organisation and its leaders, ensuring the necessary objectivity and perspective.”

    Re Wiki. I suppose this is really a massive exercise using the wisdom of the crowd to inform and educate. Maybe the crowd is not so wise after all and they might result in Wiki getting sued.

  4. Ah, now I read that “independence” paragraph to mean that her employment at the time had been monitored by Julia Thompson, not necessarily that Julia had had any involvement with or oversight of the assessment which was written later.

    Maybe not written in the clearest English! But either way, it’s still an intertwinglement.

    Most of the report read more like “how can we further promote Common Purpose?” rather than any objective evaluation of its work or merits.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: