Sarah Clarkson CP controls Simon Gilby of Sheffield Primary Care Trust

This document contains two emails from Sara Clarkson Common Purpose to Simon Gilby Sheffield Primary Care Trust NHS. In the first email Mrs Clarkson warns Simon Gilby that "you will be aware that a very small group of people are making some strange,
untrue, and in some cases defamatory, claims about Common Purpose". (This is a typical CP statement which attempts to undermine members of the public asking legitimate questions about CP activities and fees within the public sector). She advises him to assist CP to "showcase Common Purpose's positive impact" in order to overcome the efforts of the public to expose where and how their money is being spent..

In the second email Mrs Clarkson warns Mr Gilby of an article in the Yorkshire post which focused on CP's free use of office space within the Department of Children, Schools and Families. The office being used for free, and at the taxpayers expense since 1997.

These emails demonstrate the deceitful nature of Common Purpose and its ability to manipulate public sector employees in their place of work, unseen to the ordinary member of the general public.

Firstly the emails are addressed to Mr Gilby by his official email address, at his place of work in the National Health Service during the working day. Common Purpose lies by stating that the work of CP graduates is only conducted in a personal capacity. Clearly this is not true. Secondly the email is circulated In Confidence to Common Purpose Advisory Group members. As such the email traffic is secretive although the CP courses are overwhelmingly paid for with public money, as documents on this site demonstrate. Surely the general public have a right to know just what their money is paying for? Thirdly, Common Purpose is not entitled to use 'free' or 'pro bono' accommodation within government facilities which are themselves paid for from the public purse, particularly where no formal lease or service agreements are held. Did the tax office know of these benefits?

The basic question remains...just why is a politically motivated charity able to work through its secretive members in the public sector at tax payers expense?