[crabcakes_windermere]

I think it would be an excellent wheeze to start phoning/emailing the TPA every time a Tory (or other) wastes a huge load of cash on some idiotic scheme or other claiming to be from a news site demanding a quote.

[Kreuzberger]

Exactly. And a thought that has crossed my mind, too.

I'd love to see journalists who are not aligned to the right-wing call up the TPA when yet another of these stories breaks and simply report what was said.

A spokesman for the Tax Payers' Alliance was unavailable for comment.

[new puritan]

TPA cunt says we have high unemployment because of munificent benefits. No mention, naturally, of the fact that most working-age benefits recipients are in work - or that 40% of working families with children received benefits. Judging by the little spiv's profile photo I'd say that he probably doesn't have much experience of unemployment or anything else.

Given that it has often made economic sense for people not to work, we have seen endemic long-term unemployment and an exploding bill – of which the £4bn we will spend on Jobseeker’s Allowance this year is just a small proportion. In a sad indictment of decades of welfare and education policies, across the 2000s, and despite the creation of millions of jobs, 2m people claimed out of work benefits for at least five consecutive years.

Fortunately, with Help to Work (and reforms to make the benefits system simpler), work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith has shown he does understand incentives.

http://www.cityam.com/article/139871453 ... -different" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Daley Mayle]

The question is often asked about who funds the TPA

Here's a link that might answer the question and suggests it's the tax payer, albeit surreptitiously.

https://waitingfortax.com/2016/06/01/th ... -alliance/

If this has been posted before, apologies.

[Messianic Trees]

TaxPayers’ Alliance concedes it launched smears against Brexit whistleblower

The rightwing pressure group the TaxPayers’ Alliance has conceded that it illegally sacked the whistleblower Shahmir Sanni for revealing unlawful overspending in the Brexit referendum campaign, in a case that could have a major impact on how lobbyists are described in the media.

In a development that lawyers have described as “almost unprecedented”, the group has also conceded that it illegally vilified Sanni on the BBC in coordination with a network of other “linked” organisations.

The alliance has accepted all the allegations Sanni made during his action claiming unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct discrimination and “dismissal by reason of a philosophical belief in the sanctity of British democracy”.

Significantly, it has also conceded that it is liable for what Sanni’s lawyer, Peter Daly of Bindmans, describes as “extreme public vilification”. Sanni had claimed that it was responsible for a smear attack published by the website Brexit Central, and that it coordinated “derogatory statements” made by the head of Vote Leave, Matthew Elliott, to the BBC – calling Sanni a “Walter Mitty fantasist” and “so-called whistleblower” and claiming that he was guilty of “completely lying” – before an official finding by the Electoral Commission into the conduct of the Brexit referendum.

Details of the alliance’s relationship with Downing Street and the role of Stephen Parkinson, Theresa May’s political secretary, will now not be heard in court. A separate claim by Sanni against Downing Street is still ongoing. Sanni, who received an award from Gay Times last week, said: “It has proved that the TaxPayers’ Alliance sacked me for speaking the truth. And that there has been a coordinated effort by the Conservative establishment, including the government, to shut me down.

“The TPA claimed to have lost a donor because of my actions. If they had fought the case in court as we wanted, they would have had to reveal who their donors are. That they were prepared to admit their illegal behaviour on all counts shows how far they are willing to go to protect this information.

“Serious questions must be asked about who is funding them, what their exact relationship is with the government and why are they allowed a platform on national television.”

Chris Milsom, a barrister who specialises in whistleblowing cases, said: “It is incredibly unusual for a respondent to make a complete concession on liability as the respondent has here. To wave a white flag to avoid disclosing documents and giving evidence in court is really unusual. They conceded everything. How does an ostensibly private company come to be working with Downing Street? What is their relationship? Who are their funders?

[cycloon]

Don't you just hate those small elite cliques manipulating the honest people of Britain for their own selfish ends? I do, which is why I voted Brexit.

[Kreuzberger]

Is it possible to have overwhelming sympathy for the plight of Sanni while still muttering something about dogs and fleas?

[Daley Mayle]

Cameron once said that after the MPs' expense scandal the next biggie would be lobby groups and government.

[MisterMuncher]

Is it possible to have overwhelming sympathy for the plight of Sanni while still muttering something about dogs and fleas?

Not only possible, highly probable too.

[The Red Arrow]

Cameron once said that after the MPs' expense scandal the next biggie would be lobby groups and government.

All in it together?

[Andy McDandy]

What needs to be understood is that in all these think tanks, and indeed in political parties, the sad fact is that if you exist below a certain level, you are expendable. And that level isn't clearly marked and isn't always a stratum within the organisation. It's what Thatcher meant by "One of us".

[Bones McCoy]

We'll see whether the invitations to Question Time dry up.
I'm not holding my breath.

[Daley Mayle]

Maybe, for a short while. Oakshotte served a few months in Purgatory this year but, Lazarus-like is appearing again on BBC pundit shows.

Apologies for the mixed Biblical metaphors.

[davidjay]

What needs to be understood is that in all these think tanks, and indeed in political parties, the sad fact is that if you exist below a certain level, you are expendable. And that level isn't clearly marked and isn't always a stratum within the organisation. It's what Thatcher meant by "One of us".

And did Shanni really not think that to the sort of people he was mixing with, a gay Asian was just asking to be thrown overboard?

[Kreuzberger]

Sanni was not thrown overboard when he became toxic, it was the other way round. Young, idealistic, great restaurants and plenty of skin close to the epicentre of power - who knows what his motivation was?

However, while he was delivering the goods, they were more than happy to have him on side. From within the confines of that utterly amoral shit-pit, it was he who turned the tables.

As I said upthread, I do have much sympathy for his plight and that he and his family have been placed in mortal danger by actors that lead all the way from Downing Street to Derry Street via, most probably, Broadcasting House. This was and is a very public attempt to cast him as a traitor to the cause with all the attendant vilification.

That attempt has failed and, I would suggest, against all odds. He emerges with his reputation intact and stands atop a pedestal as a beacon of democratic integrity, with few questions being asked as to how he got in to this pickle in the first place.

Trust him with (a database for) a whelk-stall? Would I fuck.