Mention of ethical complexity should be followed by reference to the little-known yet highly influential charity, Common Purpose. Those that have occupied the orbit of UK Column for any length of time are more than likely to be aware of Common Purpose, which refers to its people as ‘change agents’ and holds a ‘mission to develop people who can cross cultural, institutional and social boundaries’.
Â
As far back as 2009, Brian Gerrish’s persistence pressed even the BBC into questioning whether it was right that publicly-funded ‘institutions like the police, local authorities and the BBC pay money to a charity to host training courses which are essentially networking opportunities for staff?’. As with Freemasonry, there is a distinct lack of transparency surrounding the activities and course content of Common Purpose, but what is certain is that their graduates go away destined for leadership positions and with a network that includes people from across all sectors.
Â
Often compared with an octopus, because of its many and far-reaching tentacles, Common Purpose has found itself in the spotlight, and not for the right reasons, on occasion. One such, drawing very heavily on UK Column research and reporting, was thoroughly documented by the Daily Mail in 2012, and concerned improper influence in the area of free speech during the closing stages of the Leveson Inquiry. It was mentioned earlier that both Dame Cressida Dick and Sir Mark Rowley are Common Purpose graduates, and the recent brouhaha over Nigel Farage’s Coutts bank account has given the Sun cause to speculate about Common Purpose involvement.
Â
Remarkably, Sanjeev Gupta, the steel tycoon embroiled—with David Cameron—in the rotten Greensill Capital affair, remains a trustee at Common Purpose. Of course, the vast majority of Common Purpose graduates will never hold high enough office to be instrumental in change-making at scale. However, as Martin Edwards proposed in 2010 in an article for UK Column, the objectives of Common Purpose would seem to be aligned with the concept of one-world governance.
Â
The centre of gravity required to deliver such a system of worldwide government is the age-old method of divide and rule, and this is exactly how policing slots back into the narrative. What are the chances of there really existing an ‘epidemic’ of Violence against Women and Girls of such magnitude and acuteness that organisations including the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and the World Economic Forum would declare the need for action at exactly the same time as our own British institutions?
Â
A neat divide is opened up between men and women, just as the battle-lines have been drawn over Pride, or emissions of carbon dioxide, or abortion, or immigration, or public health. These distractions are absolutely enabled by police failings; either via a disproportionate focus on internal misconduct or through an inability to police communities with any sense of integrity. It seems that Louise Casey and the Metropolitan Police have their eyes closed to this.
Â
The dangers of finding ourselves on this track are many, with some being more immediate and obvious than others. The absurd zeal with which police enforced novel legislation and policy from 2020 (which prompted my resignation from the police), despite the absence of evidence that there was any point in any of it, has—unfortunately—sounded the death knell for the use of discretion. This point of view is confirmed by the way in which public order legislation is used and it does not bode well for the likely enactment of the Online Safety Bill or the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.
Â
Â
Conclusion
With these considerations in mind, is it really likely that the Met will be transformed by the recommendations of the Baroness Casey Review or by the efforts of Sir Mark Rowley? No, it is not at all likely; but the basis of police legitimacy should be remembered.
Â
Policing should be by consent, and those that take part in the activity are simply civilian members of the community. How has this activity become so discordant with the will of the same community? Police have become, quite wrongly, both the extension of a thoughtless and autocratic state and the enforcers of policy drawn up well outside of the democratic process. That supposedly impartial public servants are supping from the same cup as the draughtsmen and drivers of one-world government is an aberration.
Â
A considerable part of the problem is that not very many people are aware of the true extent of the damage. Of those that are aware, only a fraction are determined to do something about it and most of those lack a stick of sufficient heft with which to beat police and their controllers. However, if hands are sat on then a change of direction is out of the question.
Â
Engagement with the police, and the agencies they hold improper relations with, is critical. Even if reports such as those produced by Louise Casey may be more likely to wrap fish and chips than restore integrity, a resounding demonstration of the fragility of police legitimacy cannot be ignored forever. At least the wealth of data presented by Casey may be cited when liaising with police, Police and Crime Commissioners, local and national politicians and other community collectives and, where wrongdoing is seen, it must be challenged and reported. This is an increasingly troublesome process in the age of internet obfuscation and the thigh-deep treacle of customer services engagements.
Â
Without documentary evidence and records of complaints about policing, or of liaison between police and communities, then it is all too easy to say there is nothing wrong. The comprehensive rejection of a one-world government, in all its manifestations, is something we each bear responsibility for.
