Whole Truth Coalition

Click here for more information …

‘Hollie and Anne would like to thank their many supporters for their continuing hard work and support. Towards that end, they have decided to host an informal function near Berwick-upon-Tweed at the Marshall Meadows Hotel on Sunday the 21st of March from 2 until 5pm. The Marshall Meadows Hotel is situated north of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and just a quarter of a mile south of the Scottish border.

They look forward to meeting as many of their supporters possible. The room they have booked has a lectern and microphone, in case anyone would like to say a few words. Hollie and Anne regret that they are unable to supply refreshments.

Directions to the Marshall Meadows Hotel and other information may be found on their website:

http://www.classiclodges.co.uk/Marshall_Meadows_Hotel_Berwick.html

Look forward to seeing you there!

Wednesday 24th March 2010 at 7pm

Reporter Robert Green was arrested in Aberdeen for the crime of seeking justice and an investigation into the case of Down’s Syndrome girl, Hollie Greig, who says she was serially-raped over a decade by an establishment paedophile ring operating in Scotland.

Robert is now out on bail and with a gagging order against him in an effort to stop him naming the people that Hollie says were involved.

Come and here Robert speak out against the injustices heaped out upon Hollie and her mum Anne at the hands of the Scottish establishment and the complicity of the mainstream media and especially the BBC in conspiring to cover up these atrocious crimes.

See the Truthjuice website here…

A bill proposed by the British government and now making its way through parliament would impose the most burdensome and intrusive regulation on homeschooling in the English-speaking world.

“This bill is breathtaking in its scope and reflects a perverse level of suspicion towards parents who home-educate their children,” says HSLDA Staff Attorney and Director of International Relations Michael Donnelly. “If this bill were to pass, it would be the most restrictive and overbearing law in the English-speaking world. It places total discretion in the hands of local educational officials to determine whether or not they will ‘register’ a home education program and would require criminal background checks for parents before they could begin homeschooling their own children.”

Read more…

Parents have been banned from setting foot in their children’s classrooms without first having a Criminal Records Bureau check.

Stern new signs at a college in Cambridge warn that mothers and fathers cannot enter the premises if they have not been fully vetted.
As a result they face paying £86 each - £36 for an enhanced CRB check plus a fee of up to £50 to process the application.

It is the latest CRB controversy following bans on unchecked parents walking children to a carol concert and supervising at a play park.

Councillors yesterday called the signs at Manor Community College ‘extreme’, warning they could alienate parents.
The notices read: ‘We do not allow anybody who is not fully CRB checked to enter the college premises or to work unsupervised.

This includes volunteers, visitors and contractors.

Read more…

Anthony Coughlan

The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre

24 Crawford Avenue

Dublin 9

Tel.: 01-8305792

Thursday 24 September 2009

Dear Mr Justice Clarke

May I enclose for your information a copy of the new edition of the Lisbon Treaty: The Readable Version, the first edition of which I sent you and your Referendum Commission colleagues some time ago. I also enclose a document which describes the main changes the Lisbon Treaty would make.

May I take the opportunity of saying that the current Lisbon referendum, as I presume you have noted, has been characterized by monstrous illegality on the part of several key parties, as follows:-

1. The intervention of the European Commission, which is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2. The part-funding of the posters and press advertisements of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and when, under EU law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid direct partisan advocacy. I read that the Green Party has refused such funding from its sister party in the European Parliament on the ground that it is advised that this is illegal under European law (Later comment on this latter point inserted by A.Coughlan: Presumably this scrupulousness is because Green Party Local Government Minister John Gormley, as Minister responsible for running the referendum, cannot afford to have the political party he belongs to flout the law!)

3. The Government’s unlawful use of public funds

in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called ‘assurances’ from the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty - both steps being in breach of the Supreme Court’s 1995 judgement in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public money to seek to procure a particular result in a referendum;

4. The failure of your own Referendum Commission to carry out its statutory function under the 1998 and 2001 Referendum Acts of preparing for citizens a statement or statements ‘containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the proposal (viz. the proposal to amend the Constitution) and of the text thereof in the relevant Bill’, namely the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2009.

May I make some points to you and your Referendum Commission colleagues regarding this.

The Lisbon Treaty-Your Guide which you have circulated to voters makes no attempt to inform them about the proposed Constitutional Amendment, despite that being your prime statutory duty and that of your Referendum Commission colleagues under the Referendum Acts.
The leaflet and other material which you have made available do not tell citizen-voters that the new first sentence of the proposed Amendment we shall be voting on provides that the State ‘confirms its commitment to the European Union’ which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty - a sentence, incidentally, that was not in the Constitutional Amendment in last year’s referendum - and you give voters no idea that this is the case or what such a commitment might entail.

You do not inform voters that the second and third sentences of the proposed Amendment make clear that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would abolish the European Community which Ireland joined in 1973 and would establish in its place a new European Union on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty which would be constitutionally very different from the European Union that we are currently members of, or what that difference might be.Nowhere in the Referendum Commission’s information material that you have sent to voters do you advert to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty would confer on Irish citizens an ‘additional citizenship of the post-Lisbon European Union, with associated citizens’ rights and duties vis- a -vis that Union, and what the implications of such a change might be.

One would think that there could be few things more constitutionally important for citizens than being endowed with an additional citizenship. Yet you and your Commission say absolutely nothing about it in the ‘information’ material you have circulated - in violation of the provisions of the Act which gives you your authority.

You say nothing about how the rights and duties that we would have as real citizens of the constitutionally new European Union which the Lisbon Treaty would establish would relate to our rights and duties as Irish citizens in the event of any conflicts arising between the two; or how the ‘additional’ citizenship that Lisbon would endow us with differs from our essentially notional and symbolical EU ‘citizenship’ of today.

It is clear that such a dereliction of duty on your part and that of your fellow Commissioners amounts to constitutional delinquency of a high order, as well as being a gross misuse of the e4 million of public money that you have been entrusted with. It will be interesting to see how future historians assess your actions.

As for yourself personally, instead of doing the job which the Referendum Acts impose on you, you have arrogated to yourself the task of answering questions on the Lisbon Treaty on the radio and in the press, in which you give your personal opinions and judgements, whereas all statements by the Commission should be collectively agreed by its members, as the Referendum Acts clearly envisage.
In no way do the Referendum Acts authorise you to do the ’solo runs’ on radio and in the press that you have undertaken. Your predecessor, retired Chief Justice TA Finlay, who was an exemplary chairman of the Referendum Commission between 1998 and 2002, would never have permitted this. Some of the oral statements you have made, moreover, have been either false or misleading. From several examples I could give, I quote two.

A fortnight ago you accepted in response to a question on Morning Ireland that the right of Member State governments to ‘propose’ and decide their National Commissioner would be changed by the Lisbon Treaty into a right to make ’suggestions’ only, effectively for the incoming Commission President to decide - that key person’s appointment being in the gift of the Big States.You added the rider however that you did not think this change was of much consequence. You must be aware from previous private correspondence that I had with the Referendum Commission on behalf of my colleagues in our EU Research and Information Centre that many people on the No-side consider this be a Lisbon Treaty amendment of considerable consequence. One way or another, its consequences are clearly a matter of political judgement which it is not your job as Referendum Commission chairman to make.

Last Friday I heard you state on Morning Ireland that the difference between the ‘additional’ citizenship that we would have of the post-Lisbon European Union and the notional or symbolical ‘complementary’ EU citizenship we are said to have today was ‘of no great consequence’ either, or words to that effect. Yet the most cursory acquaintance with the constitutional changes which the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitutional Amendment to ratify it would bring about, shows that this is just not true. Lisbon is the old Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe after all which the French and Dutch rejected in 2005, even if it implements that Constitution for Europe indirectly rather than directly.

You and your Referendum Commission colleagues still have some time left in which to fulfil your statutory function under the Referendum Acts that set you up. You still have a few days in which to do your duty to the Irish people whom you are profoundly failing at present, as they face their historic decision of next Friday with virtually nothing from you and your Referendum Commission colleagues which might give them

‘the general explanation of the subject matter’ of the Constitutional Amendment ‘and of its text’, on which they will be voting, as the Referendum Act requires.

On behalf of citizens all over the country who are deeply disquieted by the Referendum Commission’s failure to provide information on how the Lisbon Treaty would affect the Consitution, may I appeal to you to do that duty still and to carry out your statutory function under the Referendum Acts. Yours sincerely

Anthony Coughlan

Director
President, Foundation for EU Democracy, Brussels
PS. I intend to release this letter to the media this weekend and to circulate it widely to Irish opinion-leaders

We in the UK are proud that we are leading the world on the application of science and technology to tackle crime and criminality.

The use of profiles stored on the National DNA Database is a prime example of how police harness the power of technology in order to tackle crime, protect the public and bring offenders to justice.

Read more…

So in order to send my notarised NOU/COR to the Chief Constable of Sussex, I first had to research who he was, this was easy as quick entry into google “Sussex Police Chief Constable” took me to their website

http://www.sussex.police.uk/about_us/aboutus_thechief.asp

Don’t you just love the page name “thechief”, next he will be riding a big white horse with feathers in his helmet a whoopin and a hollerin before he scalps a few more innocent motorists!

So looking down the left hand side of the page I saw an icon for “Sussex Police Authority”, now this really confused me because I know through Dunn & Bradstreet that Sussex Police is made up of EIGHT companies (1 Head Office and 7 Branches).

Read more…

Reclaiming Our Sovereignty

Once again, we have reached a crossroads in our history. We are confronted with an enemy that would destroy our nation and its people. We have some hard decisions to make - each of us, individually. Are you prepared to make them?

The British Constitution Group’s call for Lawful Rebellion now moves up a notch and our campaign ‘Wanted – 1 million rebellious Britons’ has commenced, to be formally declared at our conference in London on the 13th June.

If you share our ambition to take back control of our country, then we need your commitment and attendance at this conference, at which we will outline our strategy to build our campaign into a force to be reckoned with.

There is a national mood for rebellion shared by patriots the length and breadth of the country. This must be harnessed under a single campaign with carefully defined objectives in order to win the war to claim back our sovereign right to govern ourselves.

Make no mistake about it, this is a war.

Fought by our enemies (within this country) with the weapons of lies, deceit, subterfuge and betrayal, their aim is to destroy the prinicple of the nation state, and replace it with regionalised global dictatorship. In order to win, we must be prepared to tell the truth about our plight to fellow Britons, the majority of whom exist in an awareness vacuum or a state of abstract denial.

We cannot go to war without an army and ‘Wanted – 1 million rebellious Britons’ is the foundation to building that army. We know that millions of our fellow countrymen and women share our views but most have been rendered impotent, convinced that there is nothing that we (the majority) can do to challenge the authority of a duplicitous minority.

Our task is to cajole, encourage, persuade, prod, push and insist that the nation rally to our cause and sign up to lawful rebellion as the only means by which we can now take back control of our country.

An honest majority can impose their will, peacefully and lawfully,  on the dishonest minority - if they have the collective will to do so. It is our challenge, indeed our duty, to rally the nation around this cause.

We need ordinary Britons in their masses to unite behind our campaign. We need to invoke our Constitution, restate our right to govern ourselves and educate a dumbed-down populous to the reality of their virtual enslavement - a harsh fact that few will recognise or are prepared to accept as true despite overwhelming evidence.

We are over-regulated, over-taxed, spied on, burdened by bureaucracy and political correctness, to the extent that we are even told the words and phrases that we can and cannot utter. Thieves, muggers and drug dealers escape with meaningless cautions, whilst the law abiding majority are fined and harassed by a militia-like officialdom who themselves take orders from compliant and controlled strata of middle mangers with an inflated sense of self-importance, hand-picked for their enthusiasm for social engineering and their busy-body mentality.

These people must be challenged; made to realise that they are working to an agenda  of destruction, in which moral values are abandoned, families devalued and society fragmented and manipulated. Whilst we are all caught up and distracted in the chaos so inflicted, the way is clear for the power elites to build their edifice from which they can look down and control us.

Each one of us should know and take heart that we are pushing back the tide of deceit. The elite’s plans are exposed - never before has the collective political establishment (the puppets of the elite) been so despised and distrusted.

We know our enemies’ strengths and we know they are enormously powerful, but we also know their weaknesses. We know that ultimately our power once harnessed is much greater than theirs. Our power so harnessed is their greatest fear.

Our power comes from our numbers and our ability to funnel these into a single campaign with the objective of taking back control. Our ability to harness this power comes from our preparedness to tell the truth about our predicament, to alert the wider public and fire their passion for freedom and true democracy. They know they are being conned by a dishonest and self-serving elite, they just need to know that there is a way in which they can be empowered. We must offer the direction and inspiration for others to follow. It is up to YOU to carry that message to the wider audience.

Do you have the courage to do so?

If you are willing to play a part in reclaiming our national sovereignty then you will need to grasp the truth of the situation, which is that the three main political parties are controlled by a global elite… whose agenda will not be disrupted one iota by elections, no matter who wins. The Brown, Cameron, Clegg show is just that… a play in which the actors create an illusion that they are in charge, but in reality it is the directors behind the scenes, hidden from our view, who are firmly in control and who will not be revealed to us until the final curtain falls – by which time it will be too late.

We are calling for our Constitution to be reinstated and our laws to be upheld, but even these are useless in the face of tyranny and oppression – ultimately they require the people to stand up and defend them.

Sign up to our pledge today.

Become a First Point of Contact.

Set up your local group.

Organise your local community.

Do it.

Do it today.

Help us turn this tide.

We the British people have a right to govern ourselves, but that right can only be enforced by the people themselves.

The British Constitution Group

Prof Julian Le Grand, the architect of a clutch of New Labour policies such as baby bonds, is calling for marriage to be the legal “default” setting for new parents.

Without having to undergo a public ceremony or take any vows, they should simply be regarded as married in law as soon as the child’s birth is registered, Prof Le Grand, Tony Blair’s former Downing Street health adviser, said.

Those who later decide to separate would have to go to court to seek a divorce in exactly the same way as a couple who had married formally in church or a register office.

The London School of Economics professor, who is also chairman of Health England, argued that the idea would make family units more secure.

Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP, rejected it as “ludicrous” and warned that it could spell the death of marriage.

The academic has attracted controversy in the past with calls for smokers to be forced to buy permits before they can buy cigarettes and the introduction of separate supermarket checkouts for alcohol to put people off buying drink.

Read more…

‘Parents fighting in the family courts for contact with their children are being denied access to their personal files by a corrupt system, a leading parental rights campaigner has said. Alison Stevens, head of Parents Against Injustice, has called for Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, to force social services and individual courts to comply with the Data Protection Act.

She said: “Local authorities have to send the requested files within 40 days… but they are often not following public law guidelines. It’s corruption within the system. They are playing God, and there must be some reason why – perhaps to hide things they have got wrong in the cases”.’

Read more…

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is considering extending a £15 surcharge for victims to those handed on-the-spot fines and fixed penalties.

Currently the extra payment is only added on to fines handed out by the courts, but any extension to fixed penalties would pave the way for millions of people including speeding drivers to be hit as well.

The current minimum fine of £60 would then be increased to £75 under the move, which is being examined by the Ministry of Justice and being discussed by magistrates.

The Victim’s Surcharge was introduced in April 2007 and latest figures show between April 2008 and January this year it raised more than £6.6 million.

But that figure would be dwarfed if it were extended to fines handed out away from the courts.

Last year, some 3.06 million drivers were handed fixed penalties for speeding alone while more than 207,500 on-the-spot fines were handed out in 2007 - the most recent statistics - for those guilty of minor disorder such as graffiti or drunk and disorderly as well as for shoplifting and cannabis possession.

Read more…

‘Victory in the first skirmish of what I expect will be a long battle - but who knows? It might be all over by Christmas!

After a three-month delay while they considered their position, a letter from HMRC tells me that I do not need to send in Income Tax Self Assessment forms and they have canceled all penalties. They had previously told me that I must pay a penalty unless I have a reasonable excuse for not submitting the forms. This was a legal requirement that must be met. They have now simply canceled the penalty without any evidence of my income.

The only reason I have offered for not sending in the forms is that I dispute their authority in Shetland. It seems I am no longer required to submit these forms, so I assume they must have come round to my point of view.It seems that bending the law a little and letting me off the penalty is preferable to having to explain how they get their purported authority, which is what will happen if they continue to pursue me.’

See more here…

Below is the text of a letter sent to all Common Purpose Employees

Also a chronological series of emails between Justin Walker an Joanna Thorpe of ‘Common Purpose’

To all employees of Common Purpose, please read:

My friends,

You are, I’m sure, already aware that your charity is controversial to a growing number of people.  Now, it may be that you are not bothered by this and that you have been reassured by internal memos sent out by Julia Middleton and her central team, but I feel I must warn you that the Charity’s inability to defend itself publicly when asked to do so by a TV channel, who very recently allowed air time to Brian Gerrish, one of your main detractors, is strange to say the least and not what you would expect from a respectable charity.   Please watch this http://www.tpuc.org/node/538 and see for yourself the severe allegations being made against the organisation you work for.

As you will see from the emails below, I have attempted to persuade the Charity to accept their ‘Right of Reply’ made by the presenter of the programme.  To date, I have had no reply.   If Common Purpose has absolutely nothing to hide, then it should readily and enthusiastically accept this offer to restore the Charity’s good name.  It would be even better if Julia Middleton had the courage to debate live with Brian Gerrish and so sort out these allegations properly.

There are now millions of people in this country who know that the planned Orwellian European Union Superstate, after the full ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, is just a matter of time…..a case of ‘when’ not’ if’.   However, there are now hundreds of thousands of ordinary decent people who know that ‘Fifth Columnists’ are actively weakening the UK internally and who are preparing, behind the scenes, new government structures, putting in place ‘new leaders’ or Quislings for when this dreadful time happens.  Well, I have to tell you, the good people of this country are organising and Common Purpose, unless it publicly clears its name, will be brought to justice and account under Common Law.    Do not be surprised if you see citizen arrests of Common Purpose employees and graduates as we seek to flush out and expose the treason and criminal activities being done against our country.

Please, I urge you most earnestly, if you have absolutely nothing to hide, will you please take up this offer by Edge Media TV to clear yourselves of the accusations being made against you.  Failure to do so will mean we reserve our Common Law right to do the decent, lawful and honest thing to save our country.

With all best wishes and sincerity,

Justin Walker
Co-founder The Whole Truth Coalition  www.wholetruthcoalition.org 

‘A Nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.  But it cannot survive treason from within’  Marcus Tullius Cicero

—–Original Message—–
From: jrgwalker@aol.com
To: joanna.thorpe@commonpurpose.org.uk
CC: timfarr on@hotmail.com; tim@timfarron.co.uk
Sent: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:35
Subject: Fwd: Common Purpose must defend itself….or else!

Dear Ms. Thorpe,

Four days on from the letter below and I’m still awaiting a reply.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Justin Walker

—–Original Message—–
From: jrgwalker@aol.com
To: Joanna.Thorpe@commonpurpose.org.uk
CC: timfarron@hotmail.com; tim@timfarron.co.uk
Sent: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 21:40
Subject: Common Purpose must defend itself….or else!
Dear Ms Thorpe,

As you can see from the message below, I contacted you back in June of last year about the attacks on Common Purpose and how astounded I was that this ‘charity’ that you work for was refusing to clear its name in the courts as any proper charity would.  Last week I saw on the Edge Media TV Channel an interview with Brian Gerrish who put forward a compelling and convincing case that your charity is, without doubt, taking part in treasonous and criminal activities (http://www.tpuc.org/node/538).  The presenter of the programme, Theo Chalmers, offered repeatedly a ‘right of reply’ to Common Purpose to defend itself at a future date.  I earnestly hope that you will take up this offer…..ideally you should agree to a live debate with Brian Gerrish so that we can sort out once and for all if there is any substance to Mr Gerrish’s allegations.  Failure by yourselves to take up this offer, which would cost the charity very little if anyth ing financially, will make ordinary decent people believe you have something to hide and will leave you open to actions under Common Law to bring Common Purpose to justice.

As you can see, I have again CC’d my MP, Tim Farron, who I’m sure will be interested in how you respond to this.

I await, hopefully, your prompt reply.

Yours sincerely

Justin Walker

—–Original Message—–
From: Joanna Thorpe <Joanna.Thorpe@commonpurpose.org.uk>
To: jrgwalker@aol.com <jrgwalker@aol.com>
CC: tim@timfarron.co.uk <tim@timfarron.co.uk>
Sent: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:32
Subject: RE: A Challenge to Common Purpose
 

Dear Mr Walker

Thank you for your email of Monday 16 June and concern about Common Purpose’s reputation.  

Common Purpose’s reputation is being attacked by a small number of persistent people, who are making a number of untrue claims about our organisation, which range from Common Purpose grooming children for sex to being a pro-EU criminal organisation working to secretly abolish the UK state.  You will have noticed that some of the criticism also comes from organisations like the British National Party. There is no doubt that these claims are defamatory. 

We take the protection of our reputation very seriously and continually seek advice about how to handle, and review our strategy for dealing with, these untrue claims. Sadly the internet today is the perfect medium for all sorts of conspiracy theories. Common Purpose is very happy to discuss the work we do, and respect anyone’s right not to agree with or support it, but it is important to us that the facts are correct. As such, we took the steps to create a website to communicate the facts and to correct the untruths about the organisation. Setting up a website is actually a fairly comm on response. We trust that people will read the claims and make their own informed decision about the m otivation of those people who have written them. From reading the www.commonpurpose.net site you will understand we are small/medium sized educational charity and our funding structure is different to the large fundraising charities like Macmillan. You can read our accounts here:  

http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home/CompanyInfo.aspx. 

We continue to monitor the need to take legal action, and the expense involved in this. We are of course, in touch with the Charity Commission, as our regulator, about these claims too. 

If you have any questions about Common Purpose  I would be delighted to talk to you,and Mr Farron MP, or to put you in touch with any of our Trustees:  http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home/aboutus/trustees.aspx.   You can read some of the comments from supporters and participants online here: www.mycommonpurposeexperience.org or visit our press room http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home/aboutus/press.aspx to get a more balanced of the coverage about Common Purpose.  

regards
Joanna   

Joanna Thorpe

Marketing Director
Common Purpose

Discovery House

28-42 Banner Street

London  EC1Y 8QE 

T: +44 (0)20 7608 8145

F: +44 (0)20 7336 6844

joanna.thorpe@commonpurpose.org.uk

www.commonpurpose.org.uk

Common Purpose gives leaders the inspiration, the knowledge
and the connections they need to produce real change.

From: jrgwalker@aol.com [mailto:jrgwalker@aol.com]
Sent: 16 June 2008 11:06
To: Joanna Thorpe
Cc: tim@timfarron.co.uk
Subject: A Challenge to Common Purpose

To: Joanna Thorpe
Marketing Director
Common Purpose

Dear Ms. Thorpe,

Your Charity is clearly under attack on a very large scale if you have had to publish a section ”Is it true that Common Purpose…..” here on  www.commonpurpose.net (Tim, please scroll down to the bottom to find it).  I know of no other charity that has had to resort to such measures.

Back in 1999, I worked for Macmillan Cancer Relief as a fundraiser.  During an internal ’teach-in’ day for the Charity in Manchester, I remember talking to Nick Young, the Charity’s then Chief-Executive (now Sir Nicholas Young, CEO of the British Red Cross) and during our chat I remember asking him what would Macmillan do if somebody criticised the Charity to the point that it damaged the Charity’s good name and the ability of the Charity to  fundraise effectively.   He said, without any hesitation whatsoever, that Macmillan would first make sure it was not at fault; then it would try and reason with the source of criticism; and, if that failed, would then resort to legal action to protect the Charity’s good name and reputation.

I have to say that I am astounded that you have not attempted to silence, through legal action, your critics.  If you are a bona fide charity, as you claim to be, with absolutely nothing to hide, then you would have taken your critics to court by now for slander and libel.   Common Purpose’s excuse for not doing so, which I read in a copy of a letter you wrote recently to one of your clients, was that you didn’t want to give th e ‘oxygen&nb sp;of publicity’ to your critics.  This is pathetic.  If you are being maliciously targeted, then you are duty bound to seek legal redress to restore your good name - this is what is expected of any decent charity with absolutely nothing to hide. One gets the feeling that you would not like your critics to have their day in court under oath.

I await your reply with interest.