Surviving Common Purpose

In the Rotherham Social Services, UKIP foster child-snatch incident Guido has highlighted the fact that the Joyce Thaker the council’s Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services was a project advisor for a pilot programme in the area run by Common Purpose.

Using their own report, this post examines the methodology used by CP in that programme, which was the first application of the Common Purpose approach at the most local level, to find the techniques damaging to people and organisations embedded in the worthy aims and lofty ideals. The project was innocuously titled Local Links.

The first thing to note about the project is the way local participants were selected; 

In selecting the programme groups, we did not recruit as participants people who

might dominate or imbalance the group in terms of power and confidence (perceived or actual) – for example, elected members and others with a ‘powerful’ profile.

This is something of an admission. In the same way a stage hypnotist carefully selects the most suggestible audience  members, CP exclude anyone capable of seeing through their act. Selection of candidates is a CP trait, which for courses they do using self-appointed regional boards. A confident and powerful person may well have exposed these cowards preying on the weak but willing and sent them packing. Obviously, someone with the power to terminate fostering placements on the basis of voting preference passes underneath that bar and is suitable to be on the advisory panel for the project. 

When the final groups came together, our view was that ‘who came were

the right people’.

The sort of people who would report to authorities on the voting habits of foster parents perhaps?

Let's take a look at what the lucky candidates victims get from the project using the 'Common Purpose approach' (my emphasis);
 

Local Links would provide potent learning experiences that were frequently set

in unfamiliar territory and locations for participants who would grapple creatively and collectively with change in the context of the area. The programme sessions would demand high levels of participation and engagement, and would increase the sense of shared community ownership of problems and solutions. 
 

The highlighted words convey uncertainty and instability and all the time the victims will be kept occupied with high levels of activity and not be allowed time to think. The last clause is pure nonsense the outcome will be quite the opposite. Remember, CP imposed themselves on the four communities in West Yorkshire to try out their dangerous NLP techniques without so much as a by-your-leave. Communities which rubbed along most of the time and whose problems could easily be solved by decent policy making rather than mind-rape.   

 

Local Links would facilitate participants’ learning, rather than

teach them;

the diversity of programme content and structure would respond to different
individual learning styles within the participant group. Thus Local Links was highly experiential, including a variety of sessions with speakers and panels, group problem solving, visits to a wide range of organisations and projects, debates, panels, role play and energised sessions as well as group and personal analysis and reflection.
 

There is a lot in this one but note the group and personal analysis and reflection. These are valid therapeutic tools in the hands of trained practitioners. Agenda driven fanatics intend to cause the previously normal and contented victims more uncertainty and personal instability.

Group problem solving would probably have looked something like this uncovered by The Captain Swing Journal. It is a Common Purpose type training session being undertaken by Sussex Police, not a Common Purpose course. The video is nearly forty minutes long, but look at the talk by the top copper  twenty-three minutes in. The theme of the talk (and the whole session) is uncertainty. He talks about a values based organisation and doing the right thing which could be anchors for decision making but they are never defined. He constantly talks about uncertainty and 'grey areas' and encourages his people to sometimes abandon process then hints that some decisions made by his underlings in these areas will be unacceptable to him but does not say what or why.

This is not weak leadership, it is active destabilisation of his own organisation. His staff are now constantly on the stressful edge of uncertainty and rendered ineffective as a police force, however they will acquire the super-attentiveness of the abuse victim toward his abuser where what is right today is wrong tomorrow. Let's not forget it is entirely probable that this top policeman is himself a Common Purpose graduate and we may be looking at another victim.

 

Local Links was designed to constitute both individual and collective learning

journeys through which knowledge, confidence and skills were enhanced and
developed. Interaction and experience of working with different people and
organisations also deepens and promotes working relationships that bond and
engage people in effective networks in and beyond the group – operating across
sectors, organisations and areas.
 

Networks working beyond authority all entwined in the loving embrace of Common Purpose.

Local Links sought to build stronger people relationships and links and, to

maximise this potential, sessions would provide the informal or ‘white space’
(the coffee break, lunch or supper) where people got to know each other better.
Programmes provided food, refreshments and ‘feel-good’, relaxed aspects (all of
which are essential parts of the Common Purpose particular offering).
 

Emphasising harmless social interaction aspect. As always with this organisation the opposite is true, it is the training sessions which are essential to their devious designs.

In return all they ask of the candidates victims is;

• be open to learning; (ignore our creepy NLP techniques)
• adhere to the Chatham House Rule of Confidentiality; (keep your mouth shut)
• avoid both giving and taking offence; (be on your best PC behaviour)
• be a leader; (do what we tell you)
• show commitment. (we own you now)

By the way, if you failed to spot the bonus mind-binding trap inserted right in the middle there don't be too hard on yourself. When you're dealing with devious fanatics no trick is too low. The injunction not to take offence is redundant if everyone avoids giving offence; someone is going to be giving offence and the hapless victim can make no objection. If they try the tables will be turned and they become the accused. Dissent is crushed before the start and if it becomes necessary exclusion for breaking the giving offence rule can be invoked.

A normal person can easily recognise Common Purpose influence and training and will write it off as PC nonsense. The coercive psychological techniques, devious manipulation and uncertainty created in individuals, communities and organisations are rarely understood. The fall out can manifest weeks and months later in the form of organisational chaos, discord and in some individuals mental illness.
 
The best complexion that can be put on CP activities is that it is a psychological experiment on various target populations, at worst it is the deliberate destabilisation of  the country. When the Daily Mail next prints a story along the lines of the Rotherham foster parents case distressing as it is for those involved, we should concern ourselves with the questions; who is doing this, why and how can we be rid of them?



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Man making vague assertions of shooting threat still content to advertise his health club in Luton Post & Herald

Well it turns out that I was right when I said that it was unlikely that Duncan Bannatyne would cancel has advertising account with the Luton Post & Herald last July.

That is where the infamous 'Snipers could soon snuff out smoking' article appeared (click 'view archive' and go to  page 8 of 21st July 2011 edition). On page 42 of this week's edition is a half page ad for Bannatyne's Health Club.

Then we get this in the Daily Mail:

Some websites have even called on followers to 'shoot' anti-smoking campaigners, listing businessman and Dragon's Den star Duncan Bannatyne among a list of targets.

The Freedom2Choose post mentioned in the article was in response to the failure of the PCC to take seriously the complaint about the Luton Herald calling for smokers to be shot in the street.

Playing the victim and making up non-existent incidents of threats or harassment is standard practise with bullies particularly when they are losing the argument. Any real incidents should be reported to the appropriate authority not the nearest journalist.

Anyone in the public eye is going to cross an occasional loon, it goes with the territory. Tobacco control spokespeople made a free choice to go there and rather than deal with a fact of life, they mendaciously turn it into a political point with as much validity as most of their statistics.

Top Ten Reasons the Mafia is Better than the State

She has a point you know.

Climategate II: No Blood on the Carpet Please

Best coverage of the gory details is here.

So, who is going to be sacked, disciplined, hauled over the coals, prosecuted or strung up from a lamp post? Like last time, no one and nor should they be.

Any official action would be purely symbolic and satisfy the ravening crowd who would then move on to the next 'scandal' to bay about until something is done by the authorities. The giant scam would continue serenely on it's catastrophic course.

The climate change conspirators would be well advised to throw some red meat to the mob, but such is their commitment to being custodians of absolute truth they can not admit any failing or shortcoming. Trapped by their own rigid dogma they hand us the spectacle of slow disintegration. This is their punishment. To carry on as if nothing has happened whilst their reputations, professional and personal, crumble to dust.

The Occupy Movement - Does Exactly What it Says on the Tin

It keeps you occupied.

Three hour meetings about whether to knit sleeping bags out of lentils or mung beans is just not my scene. Sorry, never has been. The Spaniard 'indignados' have been at it since May and have achieved nothing beyond a set of nebulous demands which amount to little more than deeper debt slavery.

Let's get one thing clear, you people are at best dupes and at worst dangerous useful idiots. You are the reason those in charge are in charge and will stay in charge in perpeputity. Understand this, the current gang of crooks or any gang you help into power in future will not tax me into penury. That is not a demand or a threat or a promise. It is a fact.

Webster Tarpley and Max Keiser, agree or disagree, at least have the tactical awarenss to try to focus the protest onto achievable demands. The Greeks are refusing to pay new property taxes imposed by the IMF collected through utility bills. This man is trying to take action;-


Get serious or get out my way. Your protests against institutions which have nothing to do with our present predicament and could not do anything about it if they wanted are your right, but it amounts to nothing more than displacement activity and nightly news fodder for the drones.

Occupy LSX? When was the last time you were forced to buy shares? Oh, that's right, when the government bought Lloyds TSB and RBS.

Global inequalities? Be careful what you wish for, that's why you are unemployed and are going to stay that way. If you had been paying attention at any time in the last thirty years you would have noticed the hundreds of Chinese students attending technical colleges in the UK. Did it never seem odd to you that young people from a dirt poor communist country where movement within the country, let alone outside it, was tightly controlled could suddenly afford to travel across the world to educate themselves? Ever read a GATT Treaty?

Why is it your 'demands' always seem to turn out  to mirror the language of the globalists? Just stay at home. Trust me, you are going to get what you wish for. There is no need to spend freezing nights outside. And while were on the subject, which strategic genius thought it would be a good idea to do that at the onset of winter?

The Will of the People (and how to sap it)

There is so much wrong with the mindless stupidity on display in this video from my previous post it is difficult to know where to begin.



Two things struck me immediately. Despite all appearances of egalitarian opportunity to speak, Mr Beardy says how keen he is that everyone's voice is heard yet never relinquishes the megaphone and secondly the people attending the assembly have, a priori, given up their motivating reason to be there.

What is not shown in the clip is that the assembly will have been told to repeat everything to help give voice to those who find it difficult to speak up and help people who find it difficult to hear. Whilst some people speak their opinion, Mr Beardy mostly gives out instruction. So by appealing to people's natural altruism they have actually been opened up to indoctrination. No one thinks or dares to suggest the obvious time saving measure of sharing the megaphone.

On closer analysis there is an awful lot more going on the purpose of which is to guide the now directionless mass in a predetermined direction. Here is how it's done.

Occupy Wall Street refers you to a quick guide on group dynamics in people's assemblies at Take the Square. The preamble states,

This text has been prepared by the Commission for Group Dynamics in Assemblies of the Puerta del Sol Protest Camp (Madrid).

Remember that for later it is important. For now, it is sufficient to understand that all the people with genuine concerns and grievences turning up to protest  are presented with this predetermined framework.

What follows from Take The Square quick guide to people's assemblies is basically Delphi Technique, which in honest hands in certain corporate settings is perfectly valid where it is already understood by individuals that their input is only important in as much as it benefits the corporation - a voluntary collective enterprise. In dishonest hands or an uninformed crowd setting it is a distinctly manipulative and unethical technique to manufacture consensus toward a predetermined outcome bypassing individual objections. My comments in red.

The Purpose of this quick guide is to facilitate and encourage the development of the different Popular Assemblies which have been created since the beginning of the 15th May Movement. This Quick Guide will be periodically revised and updated. By whom? On no account is it to be considered a closed model which cannot be adapted through consensus by any given Assembly. Very reassuring, but you will see shortly why you will NEVER get that consensus. From the Commission for Group Dynamics in Assemblies of the Puerta del Sol Protest Camp we invite our friends and comrades to attend and take part in the meetings, work plans and internal Assemblies of this Commission, which are open to anyone who wants to come to them and actively participate in maintaining, perfecting and developing them.

Open Reflection on Collective Thinking



While we would like to share our impressions so far, we encourage you to continue to reflect on and debate these impressions as we feel that Collective Thinking is an essential part of our movement. You will probably find that you missed the meeting where this particular consensus was reached. To our understanding, Collective Thinking is diametrically opposed to the kind of thinking propounded by the present system. So, if you don't agree with us you can and will be sidelined, ostracised and pilloried as part of the problem. This makes it difficult to assimilate and apply. Time is needed, as it involves a long process. When you have to go back to work on Monday to pay for that mortgage you can't afford we will still be here and your input will have been long forgotten and have no effect on the eventual consensus reached. When faced with a decision, the normal response of two people with differing opinions tends to be confrontational. They each defend their opinions with the aim of convincing their opponent, until their opinion has won or, at most, a compromise has been reached.The aim of Collective Thinking, on the other hand, is to construct. That is to say, two people with differing ideas work together to build something new. The onus is therefore not on my idea or yours; rather it is the notion that two ideas together will produce something new, something that neither of us had envisaged beforehand. An outright lie. This focus requires of us that we  (meaning you) actively listen, rather than merely be preoccupied with preparing our response.








 Collective Thinking is born when we understand that all opinions, be these opinions our own or others’, need to be considered when generating consensus and that an idea, once it has been constructed indirectly, can transform us.


Do not be discouraged: we are learning; (no, you know exactly what you are doing) we’ll get there: all that’s needed is time.

THE BASICS





What is a People’s Assembly? It is a participatory   (where the sum total of your participation amounts to waving your hands in the air)    decision-making body which works towards consensus. The Assembly looks for the best arguments to take a decision that reflects every opinion – not positions at odds with each other as what happens when votes are taken. It must be pacific, respecting all opinions: prejudice and ideology must left at home. Although not the collectivist ideology apparently. An Assembly should not be centred around an ideological discourse; instead it should deal with practical questions: What do we need? How can we get it? The Assembly is based on free association – if you are not in agreement with what has been decided, you are not obliged to carry it out. Every person is free to do what they wish – the Assembly tries to produce collective intelligence, and shared lines of thought and action. It encourages dialogue and getting to know one another.


What types of Assembly have we used so far? Working Group Assemblies, Commission Assemblies, Local Assemblies (in neighbourhoods, villages and towns), General Assemblies of the Puerta de Sol Protest Camp and General Assemblies of Madrid (Puerta de Sol plus neighbourhoods, villages and towns). These latter (General) Assemblies are the final deliberative or deciding bodies from which the consensuses are decided in order to articulate the different lines of Joint Action for the 15th May Movement in each city. In other words a Soviet system where a central committee  determines the consensus of consensuses by an undefined process and hands down instructions without a single election or vote being taken.


What is Consensus? It is the way that the assemblies make a final decision over each specific proposal. Consensus is reached when there is no outright opposition in the assembly against the proposal. The following format must be applied to each proposal: 1) What is being proposed? 2) Why is it being proposed? 3) How can we carry out the Proposal if a consensus is reached? To sum up: What? Why? How?



What is Direct Consensus? A Consensus that is directly reached without opinions against it: Proposal > Consensus.

What is Indirect Consensus? A Consensus that is reached after debating different opinions on a proposal which did not reach a Direct Consensus. The following steps are taken to reach an Indirect Consensus: 1) What? Why? How? 2) After the moderator asks ‘Are there any strongly opposed opinions?’, and if there are, a queue for floor time is prepared. The Floor Time Team and Coordinator(s) open the first round of debate. Three arguments for and three arguments against are allowed. After that, the Assembly is asked to show its opinion again through Gestures. If consensus is still not reached when asking if there are opinions against, the Moderator will ask the Assembly to discuss the issue for three to five minutes in small groups where they are sitting. After this small break a second round of interventions consisting of Proposals for Consensus takes place. If a consensus is still not reached after these two rounds, the following takes place: a) If the Proposal comes from a Commission or Working Group, it is returned in order to be reworked, b) If the Proposal comes from an individual, it will be taken to the competent Commission or Working Group so it can reach a consensus on its usefulness and present a reworked version of it in the next Assembly, where it will once again go through the same procedure. And so on until a Real Consensus is reached. Here is where the sleight of hand takes place. Notice all of a sudden there are moderators, facilitators and coordinators everywhere. Even something called a Floor Time Team has appeared. All very neutral sounding, no need for messy elections and anyway you have already been assigned your role as Assembly Participant along with Group Dynamics Teams and members of Commissions and Working Groups. Facilitators are highly trained to spot, isolate and neutralise dissent and the whole methodology outlined above is designed to provide opportunity for them to do this. Any one individual who voices disagreement with a proposal is already a stand out because a proposal can only come via a Commission or Working Group.  That five minute break to go into small groups, for example, has nothing to do with promoting discussion. This is where facilitators go to work mingling, making lists of points raised in the small groups and noting who agrees with the dissenter. Remember the nice words earlier about getting to know each other and respecting all opinions? Well now all that goes out of the window to ensure that people who agree with you won't speak up and suffer the same fate. If they do speak up the lists of points raised compiled by the facilitators come into play. These are handed to the Moderator who will read out a 'representative' sample of points raised by the small groups omitting or downplaying dissenting points giving the appearance of consensus apart from the lone dissenter.
If you have a proposal at odds with the predetermined outcome, it's off to a Working Group along with a lovely group of dedicated people who seem to have limitless time and endless discussion points to raise. After the first three or four meetings of your group the people who broadly agreed with your proposal will have come to regard you with suspicion and will gradually peel away. Once your proposal has been 'reworked' a Commission may well pick it up to be put on the agenda at a General Assembly. All done without a single election, vote or leader. Just people who appear in the positions set out below.  Opportunities for manipulation of the direction of opinion offered by such a set up abound to such and extent that it is safe to give some roles to ordinary people who have been observed at previous assemblies and shown themselves to be cooperative.
THE ROLES AND FUNCTIONS INVOLVED IN A MASS ASSEMBLY:



It is vital to remember to control our gestures and body language so that our own emotions do not confuse matters, and to remember also that a smile is hugely effective in moments of tension or in an apparent dead-end. Haste and tiredness are the enemies of consensus.

LOGISTICS TEAM: A minimum of three people who are responsible for the equipment of an Assembly. They draw a Map of the Site on the site itself, organising spaces and the corridors that run through these spaces, they are in charge of the megaphone, they provide seating for people with disabilities or who are very tired, they provide water and shade (parasols/umbrellas) if temperatures are high or the sunshine is direct, etc. Control of who ultimately gets heard and when, control of who sits where.

ASSEMBLY PARTICIPANTS: This includes all those people participating in an Assembly, including the Group Dynamics Teams and members of Commissions or Working Groups. Participants are the life blood and the raison d’être of an Assembly. We are all responsible for running and building the Assembly. Our functions are: listening to the different speakers; participating in matters that require debate in rounds of floor time, and making individual proposals or subjective evaluations (having requested the Floor-Time Team to do so) during the Any Other Business round (normally near the end of each Assembly). Your assigned role. Notice you as an individual are put along side and on an equal footing with several types of group so that apparent peer pressure can be brought to bear when necessary.

FLOOR TIME TEAM: Two to four people (depending on the size of the Assembly) positioned amongst the participants and next to the corridors. They should wear a distinctive symbol in order to be identifiable easily and carry a card which says “TURNS FOR THE FLOOR” which they lift above their heads, particularly at the end of each intervention. Their main task is to note down the names of the participants who want to take a turn. When such a request takes place, they ask the participant:

1) Is your intervention related to what is being discussed? (Remind the participant of the issue being discussed). 2) Is it a direct reply to something that has been said? 3) If so,is it in agreement or disagreement? With this information the floor-time team member determines if the intervention should be passed to the Floor-Time Coordinator(s) or not. If the proposed intervention bears no direct relationship to the issue at hand, the person’s name is noted so that they may be called upon during the Any Other Business round. They will also tell the participant about other debate forums (speakers’ corners, working groups…). Members of this team should be conciliatory, positive, neutral and patient. They are also responsible for noting any request from the moderator(s) to be relieved. They should try and involve people who have not yet intervened in the debate. A common error is to omit announcing the end of the period for requesting floor time. The total amount of floor time should be limited using common sense in order not to allow each issue to drag on indefinitely. Control of who speaks, when they speak if at all and in what order.

COORDINATOR(S) OF THE FLOOR-TIME TEAM: Two people, in close coordination with the Floor-Time Team, whose task is to organise the requests to take the floor that are forwarded to them by this team before passing them on to the moderator(s). Should a heated debate be under way, their role includes both selecting speakers so that the same message is not repeated, as well as mediating between people with similar arguments with the aim of presenting a unified proposal for debate. The coordinators are a filter – they do not evaluative the content of each intervention. In order to assure that the interventions are relevant, they should remind speakers of the issue at hand and if this does not coincide with what the speaker wants to share, direct them to other forums (speakers’ corners, working groups…). Once the intervention has been coordinated, the floor-time coordinator informs the facilitator who informs the moderator so that they can call on the speaker to intervene in the right order.

FACILITATING TEAM: Two or three people who back up the moderator. They are the moderator’s “voice of conscience”. They are the only people in direct contact with the moderators in order to help them maintain their concentration and impartiality. The Facilitators should be positioned around the moderation space. They help the moderator synthesise and reformulate proposals in an objective and impartial way. They facilitate the flow of information between “Coordination” and the Moderator so that floor-time is fair and organised. They prevent assembly participants from distracting the moderator, help the moderator communicate with people who find it difficult to speak in public, make the moderator aware of any errors in their vocabulary or summaries, inform them of any last-minute announcements, help them stick to the agenda, etc. In large debates the figure of a “Direct Facilitator” may be created in order to even more closely help the moderator to follow the norms of the Assembly. A vital role for the manipulators. Any attempt by a member of the rotating team of Moderators to take a vote or elicit genuine consensus can be headed off here.

An important way of helping the Assembly to run smoothly is to incorporate one or two people who intervene when there are silences, over-heated discussions or serious digressions. Their main role is to remind assembly participants of the importance of Collective Thinking, Active Listening and the true meaning of Consensus.

ROTATING TEAM OF MODERATORS: One or more people (who rotate if the Assembly is large or there is a lot of tension). This rotation is decided upon by the whole team of moderators, with the greater good of the assembly in mind. The moderator can ask to be replaced. The moderator should help the Assembly to run smoothly, should bring together the general sense of the Assembly rather than follow a protocol, Ideally, this figure should not need to exist. (everybody should respect everybody) The moderator(s) are responsible for: welcoming the participants to the Assembly;explaining the nature and workings of the Assembly; presenting the group dynamic teams and their functions; moderating positively and conciliating distinct positions without aligning themselves personally with any of these; informing the Assembly of the positions for and against during the process of Indirect Consensus; summarising each intervention during the rounds of debate should it be needed; and repeating the consensus as recorded in the minutes. The moderator also gives voice to gestures made should a speaker not have noticed (it is recommended that assembly participants wait for a speaker to finish their turn in order to express agreement or disagreement so as to avoid swaying the speaker). Furthermore, the moderator is responsible for ensuring an atmosphere propitious to the exchange of ideas and for establishing a positive tone. Should the need arise they might also release tension by reminding participants of the value that any debate adds to the 15th May Movement and by motivating participants in general. The moderator can also be replaced via consensus of the Assembly as a whole. Anything spoken off microphone should be relayed to the Assembly as a whole in order to foment transparency.

INTERPRETER TEAM: One or two people who translate oral interventions into sign language for the hard of hearing and vice versa. Their vision should not be impeded by standing in front of them. If the members of this team are in direct sunlight, the Logistics Team will assign two people to shade them with parasols.

MINUTES TEAM: Two people responsible for noting all interventions which do no have a script. In the case of consensus resolutions the minutes team can ask for any resolution to be repeated word by word and subsequently ratified by the Assembly. Normally one team member writes down interventions by hand whilst the other uses a computer in case what has been written needs to be cross-checked. If the members of this team are in direct sunlight, the Logistics Team will assign two people to shade them with parasols. At the end of the Assembly, the minutes taken by this team should be read out to avoid any confusion.

PROPOSAL – THE POSITION OF THE GROUP DYNAMICS TEAM IN EACH ASSEMBLY
Essentially they fill the role of the highly trained facilitators in ordinary Delphi Technique situations. Not all members of this team will be identifiable by ordinary members of the Assembly.





LOGISTICS TEAM: Its purpose is to prepare and organise the Assembly area before it takes place in order to make it more efficient and functional. The logistics person(s) are in charge of agreeing on and marking out the area (within their possibilities) together with the other teams.

The Moderators’ Area is a rectangle marked out with chalk (or coloured tape stuck to the floor) in front of the assembly area like a type of ‘stage’. Between this area and the assembly area the Floor-Time Team is visibly placed and spread out amongst the participants. Within the Moderators’ Area, the Moderator and the Speaker (person who has the floor) will stand in the middle, flanked by the Interpreter(s) and Facilitator(s) who will normally be squatting or sitting on the floor when not taking part, and always within reach of the Rotating Team of Moderators and the Floor Coordinator(s).

To one side of the Moderators’ Area sit the Spokespeople of the Commissions and/or the Working Groups who will be intervening in the different parts of the Agenda; on the other side an area will be provided for the Floor Coordinator(s) who will always be within reach of the Facilitator(s) and as far as possible from the Minutes Team (who will always sit near the Moderators’ Area in order to be able to request a repetition, summary or text that has been presented) in order not to distract their attention from the conversations which take place before each turn to speak, making their job easier.

GESTURES USED TO EXPRESS COMMON OPINION OF THE ASSEMBLY





The following gestures have been agreed on in order to permit the expression of common opinion during assemblies:


1) APPLAUSE/AGREEMENT: Upraised, open hands moving from side to side.


2) DISAGREEMENT: Arms folded in cross above the head.


3) “THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID”/”GET TO THE POINT”: As if requesting a substitution in sport, revolving upraised hands.


4) “YOUR INTERVENTION IS TAKING UP TOO MUCH TIME”: Crossed arms. Forearms come together and move apart as if they were the hands of a clock so that palms touch above head.


5) “DIFFICULTY HEARING INTERVENTION”: Cupped hands to ears or hand moving up and down as if to indicate, “turn the volume up”.


It is advisable to remind participants of these signs at the beginning of each Assembly. It is also advisable to inform participants that is more useful to display disagreement once the person speaking has finished in order not to condition their intervention, whenever possible. Control of action.The importance of contolling who sits where becomes apparent here. Everyone in the assembly can see someone sitting at the front waving their hands above their head and is influenced by it. The idea is to create a kind of 'mexican wave' of peer pressure for approval and achieve the consensus. Disapproval using crossed arms the rear of the assembly will not be seen by 98% of the assembly and will be 'missed' by the Moderator and the all important consensus will be maintained. Notice too that participants are told not to display disagreement until the speaker has finished, yet agreement will be signalled from the front at various stages throughout.

ORAL EXPRESSIONS RECOMMENDED FOR MODERATORS AND SPEAKERS



We use Positive Speech avoiding negative statements which close the door to constructive debate. It is a less aggressive and more conciliatory type of communication. It is useful to open a debate with the points that unite before dealing with the points that separate. Examples:


1) ‘Don’t touch that dog or it will bite you’ could be phrased as ‘Be careful with that dog because it could bite you and neither of us would like that.’


2) ‘If we don’t reach a consensus here all efforts will go to waste’ could be phrased as ‘It’s important we reach a consensus in this point or we could end up losing strength as a group and nobody wants that to happen.’


We use Inclusive Speech which makes no gender distinctions. It is clear that force of habit can be hard to break, but it is convenient that between all of us we mutually remind ourselves to remember this. Contol of speech. To control speech is to control thought.

KEYS TO CREATING DYNAMIC AGENDAS



What is the Agenda of an Assembly? What is it for? The Agenda is a summary of the topics to be discussed during an Assembly. Its function is to make sure no important issue is left out, to establish an order in the type of interventions and to make it possible to calculate how much time each part of the Assembly should take. The agenda is drawn up by the Group Dynamics Team and the Moderator of any assembly should be familiar with it before opening an assembly as it is a basic guide to that assembly’s contents. The Group Dynamics Team does not have jurisdiction over the contents of the Agenda; its members merely organise the issues to be discussed as reflected in the consensus reached by the representatives of all participating commissions in preparatory meetings. The agenda contains an outline of what issues are to be discussed in the Assembly and as such should be read out loud at the beginning of the Assembly so that the all present are aware of what is going to take place. Experience will help improve the design and relevance of each Assembly agenda. We recommend setting time limits for each Assembly depending on the number of participants and the issues to be discussed, in order to avoid loss of concentration and unfruitful assemblies.


**Schematic, practical example of an Assembly Agenda**


1) Welcome and Positive Presentation. The Assembly is the effective celebration of the power of the people.


2) Summary of the consensuses reached in the previous Assembly and all outstanding issues.


3) Presentation of the Group Dynamics Team for the Assembly in question. The roles of each of its members.


4) Explanation of the concept “Assembly”. We do not “vote”, we reach consensus.


5) Explanation of the concept “Consensus” (direct and indirect). Explanation of the process used to reach an indirect consensus.


6) Examples of how the mechanics of the Floor-Time Team and Facilitators during an Assembly.


7) Reminder of the gestures used in an Assembly and suggestions of how to express oneself verbally in concordance with the 15th May Movement style, as approved by the General Assembly.


Reading the Agenda out loud.


9) The turn of the Commissions and Work Groups without specific proposals for the Assembly, only information which does not require consensus. It is advisable that a spokesperson from each Commission or Working Group attends the preparatory meeting for the Assembly in order to help organise the list of issues to be discussed.


10) The turn of the Commissions and Working Groups with specific proposals for the Assembly. If a direct consensus is not reached, the floor is opened to debate. Remember: there should be a maximum of two rounds of debate to defend each position (in groups of three speakers) and/or find a point of agreement. If the debate becomes heated, a period of common reflection can be opened and if after two rounds no consensus is reached the issue can be adjourned to the following Assembly. Opinion > Debate > Resolution or Adjournment.


11) IMPORTANT NOTICES. Citations, general interest information, latest news, etc.


12) ANY OTHER BUSINESS. During this round, there is no opportunity for debate. The information is not to be ratified at this point, rather taken up by the pertinent working group or commission. Important: if it is necessary to cut short this round because of lack of time or tiredness, announce this and tell those who have not had a chance to intervene in this round that the subjects they wanted to mention will have priority in the any-other-business round in the next Assembly.


13) Conclusions and notification of time and place of next Assembly.


14) Message of motivation and reminder of common purpose. Now is the time to use memorable words, which may be in verse, a piece of good news, a highly-charged quotation or a short text, etc.


15) Closure and acknowledgements.


(+ SHORT MOTIVATING MESSAGE. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE. ENCOURAGEMENT.)

Control of agenda.

End of quotes from Take the Square.


CONCLUSION

Either Occupy Wall Street have adopted a model of organising developed organically in the Spanish protests which just happens to resemble a sophisticated technique of control or a great deal of planning, organising and money has gone into successfully orchestrating and manipulating the protests. The Spanish model far from being organic has progenitors in the former Soviet satellite states and North Africa as this highly recommended 30 min documentary explains;-

http://youtu.be/lpXbA6yZY-8

'Yes! We are all individuals!'

Like the zombies in the video words fail me.